I think its fine to starve death row inmates too.... as long as they are also in a persistant vegitative state and won't notice it either.

Posted by Curtis at March 21, 2005 12:28 PM

I'm fine with starving death row inmates to death also, and I prefer that they aren't in a vegatative state. Just so they will notice.

Posted by Fersboo at March 21, 2005 12:35 PM

I am glad someone is finally asking the right questions. To be honest, IF she had a living will and IF it said she didn't want a feeding tube, starving her to death still seems like a horrible way to grant her wish. Since she DID NOT leave a living will and it is NOT clear that she would not want a feeding tube, how can you justify starvation?

I don't get it...

Posted by Chevy at March 21, 2005 12:37 PM

"how can you justify starvation?"

She won't notice the difference between starvation and lethal injection. That is how.

Posted by Curtis at March 21, 2005 12:42 PM

I'll take a shot at this :

#1) ... Since it is patently obvious that lethal injection is more humane than starvation, don't you agree we should just kill her by lethal injection? And are you willing to be the one to inject her?

If it is to help ease her pain, assuming it exists, and help fulfill her last cogent desires, I'd support medical intervention to the point of lethality. It would be hypocritical to support that position and not be willing to perform the gut-wrenching task if the conditions arose. Were I licensed/defaulted to perform such a task in order to fulfill a loved one's last wishes, I would do it. I would hope that my loved ones would have the inner courage and strength to not prolong such an existence for me were I in a similar circumstance.

#2) ...do you agree that we should let murderers on death row starve to death too? And if starvation is ok for Terri, what would you say about the Administration starving prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Grab to get information of out of them that might save American lives?... Certainly that would be ok right?

If a 15-year veteran of death row who had received extensive judicial review were up for consideration, I would condone termination to the extent that law allows. If death is the sentence and lethal injection (or alternate) is removed as mode, and society demands finality, then starvation will be permitted with the administration of medication to ease the process.

Starving of terrorists? OK. Supplemental medication would probably be self-defeating since it is the pain that is desired as a tactic, so I would probably hold off.

Now back to the original question 2 - Do you think it is appropriate to have one judge ajudicate Schiavo's Law should the case reach Federal?

Posted by AnonymousDrivel at March 21, 2005 12:46 PM

She won't notice the difference between starvation and lethal injection.

Really? And you know this to be true in what fashion?

Posted by Mark Flacy at March 21, 2005 12:46 PM

Curtis, who the hell are you to make such a distinction of what is and what is not painful?? What makes you such an authority? If you ask me, I think you're full of shit.

Posted by Mike at March 21, 2005 12:55 PM

It doesn't matter if it's true anymore. They'll just say she's brain dead, or in a coma, or in a PVS, or unable to feel pain--it doesn't matter that it's all false. Tell a lie, tell it enough times, and it becomes the truth. It's no different than the horde of democrats standing up last night to declare that this decision should be left to the family--never mind that the bill does exactly that.

Still doesn't answer the question of why they are so desperate to have her killed.

Posted by TrainWreck at March 21, 2005 12:56 PM

From wikipedia- "Most of Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid; Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo]has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region." [7] (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html) [8]"

If her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid, she is not going 'feel' pain from starvation like a deathrow inmate would. That is the main point I am making. Paul's comparison does not make sense.

Posted by Curtis at March 21, 2005 1:13 PM

"If her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid, she is not going 'feel' pain from starvation like a deathrow inmate would."

And this is based on what knowledge?

As I have said many times, we think there is no pain, because the doctors think there is no pain, since Terri and others in her condition are not around to tell us otherwise, it is pretty arrogant and presumptuous to declare she feels no pain.

Until the doctors can tell me what in the brain makes my son with autisms brain work differently than mine, I will take a pass on them declaring who can and can't feel pain.

Doctors have determined that infants born without a cerebral cortex feel pain.

And is pain really the entire issue anyway? She is brain damaged, not terminally ill.

Posted by Just Me at March 21, 2005 1:23 PM

Ok, I've been looking at the private laws passed in recent years, and it seems that most of them are dealing with either immigration/naturalization status of a particular individual or compensation of government employees or veterans. In other words, none of them seem to stem from court cases that have made it through the judicial process at all. I'm not a lawyer or legislator though, so does anyone know of a private law that was passed for someone who already had a case go through the courts? Is this a first? And if it is, what is to stop Congress from intervening with a private law every time they don't agree with the outcome in state courts?

Posted by mantis at March 21, 2005 1:31 PM

destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid; Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo]has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region."

Funny you should use that shell of an argument, since CT isn't enough to prove that her brain has 'liquified'. Now, according to her medical records, she may have had an MRI, a vastly more accurate test... but then again, in those same records there are attestations to the fact that she can communicate, respond, and feel pain.

Speaking of which, there have been instances of people diagnosed as PVS recovering fully and describing their complete ability to feel pain during their ordeal. Go figure.

Posted by Pietro at March 21, 2005 1:34 PM

Typical Leftist slave morality. They want her dead, but nobody wants accountablity for murdering her. They kill her and hide the cause of her death in red tape. The same "murder by bureaucrat" mentality as those who ran the gulags and concentration camps. The sick part is how eager they are to mass-produce the wholesale murder of undesierables.

QUESTION: If you want her dead so bad, why won't YOU pull the trigger? Are are you just a bloodthirstly coward afraid of life?

Posted by Ted at March 21, 2005 1:34 PM

Speaking of which, there have been instances of people diagnosed as PVS recovering fully and describing their complete ability to feel pain during their ordeal. Go figure.

Right, there is a problem with misdiagnosis in PVS (a symptom of which is not that the subject cannot feel pain), due to the fact that there are no surefire ways to test for it. CT scans and MRI's can help to identify the cause, but PVS is diagnosed clinically and over time. PET and EEG are useful in monitoring brain activity, and an EEG was performed on TS, as was a CT scan (both supporting diagnosis of PVS). The problem here is, people who have gone into PVS and recovered, misdiagnosed or not, recover almost always within maybe 2 years. Does anyone know of any case of PVS where the patient recovered, or even improved slightly, after 15 years? And regarding MRI, does anyone have a reference to it being essential to diagnosis of PVS, apart from the NRO article. I've looked quite a bit on medical sites and published papers and have found no such reference.

Posted by mantis at March 21, 2005 1:40 PM

Is anyone shocked that those who have little problem with killing unborn children are not particularly interested in Terri's situation? Repeating, the Dems are gonna pay dearly for this in 2006.

Paul: You nailed it. Many thanks.

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 1:43 PM

Repeating, the Dems are gonna pay dearly for this in 2006.

How so? The law passed, a federal judge will review the case. 47 Dems voted for it. I could see your argument had the Democrats actually prevented the bill from passing, but they didn't, nor did they really try. Will the 5 Reps that voted against it pay dearly for it in 2006?

Posted by mantis at March 21, 2005 1:51 PM

RE: Old Coot's post (March 21, 2005 01:43 PM)
...Repeating, the Dems are gonna pay dearly for this in 2006.

Hi Old Coot,

I beg to differ. My entire immediate family of voting age, all of whom voted 100% Republican in the '04 election, (at least as far as one may ascertain about anyone's vote, not having been in the booth to watch) and who vote Republican almost without exception particularly at the Federal level, are livid over this Republican action and are reconsidering the party - not just because of this but some other issues as well. This just may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The known conservative acquaintances with whom I associate are pretty ticked too.

I think there may well be a backlash to all of this and the Democrats will have an issue to advance regarding the invasion of goverment on individual rights. The Republican party used to advance such a notion but have deviated as of late. I think the party may find itself alienating a good many moderates who will opt out of '06 (possibly '08) believing that they do not have a party that represents their views any more. They may vote third-party, if there is one, which typically spells doom for the majority party. As national security becomes less of an issue, border security and domestic issues will come to fore. I see cracks developing.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel at March 21, 2005 2:19 PM

Is anyone shocked that those who have little problem with killing unborn children are not particularly interested in Terri's situation?

You know that Texas law that allows hospitals to remove life support from people against their family's wishes if they have no money? The one that allowed a hospital to hasten the death of a six-month old boy over the protests of her mother, and was set to remove support from a 68 year old man before he was relocated?

Well, National Right to Life, the prominent anti-abortion group, helped to write that law.

So please, cut the drivel relating Terri's case to abortion.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 2:23 PM

Curtis said, "She won't notice the difference between starvation and lethal injection."

But we will, Curtis. We will. This situation isn't about what Terri can or can't feel, because we have no idea one way or the other. This situation is about how we treat each other.

Posted by Jeff Harrell at March 21, 2005 2:31 PM

Seems it would be helpful for some of you to get some facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Terri Schiavo lies in a Florida hospice, subject to a judge’s order that will cause her to die of starvation and dehydration commencing this Friday, March 18, at 1:00 P.M. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have fought for over a decade to prevent her death. They have repeatedly gone to court in their efforts to stop Terri’s husband, Michael, from removing the tube that provides her with food and water.

The court battle has gone largely against the Schindlers. Last week, Pinellas County Circuit Court judge George Greer issued a steady stream of rulings denying almost every motion the Schindlers raised. He denied some of them summarily, without hearing arguments or evidence. Among the motions Judge Greer denied was a request for new testing and examination of Terri by independent and qualified specialists. David Gibbs, attorney for the Schindlers, submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals contending that Terri’s condition should be reevaluated. About 15 of these affidavits are from board-certified neurologists. Some of these doctors also say that Terri could benefit from therapy. Judge Greer was unmoved.

Many people believe that Terri Schiavo has had “the best of care,” and that everything has been tried by way of rehabilitation. This belief is false. In fact, Terri has had no attempts at therapy or rehabilitation since 1992, and very little had been done up to that point. Terri has not even had the physical therapy most doctors would regard as normative for someone in her condition. The result is that Terri suffers from severe muscle contractures, which have caused her body to become contorted. Physical therapy could remedy this, but husband Michael has refused to provide it.

Terri has also suffered from what many professionals would regard as neglect. She had to have several teeth extracted last year because of severe decay. This decay was caused by a lack of basic dental hygiene, such as tooth-brushing. She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs. These ulcers can be prevented by a simple regimen of regular turning: a basic nursing task that any certified nurse’s aide can perform. The presence of these easily preventable ulcers is a classic sign of neglect. Bob and Mary Schindler have repeatedly complained of Terri’s neglect, and have sought to remove Michael as guardian on that basis. Judge Greer was unmoved by those complaints as well.

BAD MEDICINE
And, quite apart from the question of Terri’s therapy and care, it is entirely likely that Terri has never been properly diagnosed. Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.

I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

So how can Judge Greer ignore the opinions of so many qualified neurologists, some of whom are leaders in the field? The answer is that Michael Schiavo, his attorney George Felos, and Judge Greer already have the diagnosis they want.

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”

But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.

So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.

The most obvious possible explanation for what would otherwise be inexplicable behavior is that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer don’t want to admit any information that would upset the diagnosis they already have. Dr. Morin, when told that Michael had refused an MRI, and that Judge Greer had confirmed the decision, said: “He refused a non-invasive test? People trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri’s case.” Dr. Bell agreed with this assessment, saying, “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”

THE CRANFORD DIAGNOSIS
Doctors for Michael Schiavo have said that an MRI and PET are not necessary for Terri because PVS is primarily a “clinical” diagnosis, that is, one arrived at on the basis of examination of the patient, rather than by relying on tests. And the neurologists I have spoken to agree on the clinical nature of the diagnosis, while insisting that advanced tests nonetheless are a necessary part of it. But the star medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed.

Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.

In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.

In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.

In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.

Expert witnesses in court are supposed to be unbiased: disinterested in the outcome of the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is establishing that they are objective and unbiased. But given Dr. Cranford’s history of advocacy in the “right to die” and euthanasia movements, and given his track record of almost always coming down on the side of PVS and removal of nutrition and hydration, one might question his objectivity. Indeed, the Schindlers’ attorneys attempted to do so in the 2002 evidentiary hearing at which Cranford testified, but went unheard. Organizations such as the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the appellate proceedings in Terri’s case, demonstrating Cranford’s bias in detail. But these arguments also seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Some neurologists who also consult in legal cases were not surprised at the handling of Dr. Cranford’s expert testimony. In theory, they said, the expert witness is supposed to be objective, but, as Dr. Bell explained, “the way it really works is that an attorney carefully selects an expert that will give him the outcome he desires.” He related that he has been asked by attorneys to serve as an expert. “I have looked over medical records,” he said, “and told attorneys what I thought.” But on occasion, he said, his opinion was “obviously not what they wanted to hear” and “they moved on to another expert.” Bell acknowledged that Cranford is “a highly accomplished and experienced speaker,” but said that in him the court “likely found a highly prejudiced expert.”

Neurologists who are familiar with diagnosing and treating PVS and other brain injuries have told me that PVS is a notoriously difficult diagnosis to make. It requires a great deal of time spent with the patient over several days or weeks. The reason for this, as Dr. Bell explained, is that brain-injured patients have severely disrupted sleep/wake cycles. Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Fla., added that patients with severe brain injury will have greatly varying levels of alertness: “Two independent examiners may get an entirely different impression depending on when and how long he/she has spent performing the examination. For example, one examiner may unknowingly attempt to evaluate the patient during a stage of sleep. Another examiner, by chance, may find a more responsive patient simply because [the patient is] now more aroused.” Dr. Morin concurred, saying that in his experience “the attention of brain-injured patients is very erratic,” and that because of this he has “seen inadequate assessments even by experienced neurologists.” Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors.

So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS. The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.

In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”

"I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. "A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex." "

By the very definition of Persistent Vegetative State, the patient must exhibit no “evidence of awareness of self or environment” or “ability to interact with others.” As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.” All it takes, according to Dr. Jones, is “only one examiner to discover the presence of higher brain function and the naysayers’ opinions are, by the very definition of PVS, null and void.”

TERRI’S FUTURE — AND THE ISSUE OF TRUTH
Given the difficulty of diagnosing PVS, the high rate of error, the obvious bias of the doctor whose judgment forms the basis of the judge’s ruling that Terri is PVS, and the growing outcry from the neurological community, how is it that Judge Greer’s ruling has been sustained? The answer is that in our legal system, once a judge has ruled on a matter of fact, it is very difficult to revisit such a ruling. The lawyers’ rule of thumb is that trial courts hear and rule on questions of fact, and appellate courts rule on questions of law; it’s unusual for an appellate court to overturn a lower court’s ruling because of an issue of fact.

That’s why, at every turn in this case, the Schindlers have had to try to undo the faulty rulings of fact previously issued by Judge Greer. They’ve had to go back before Judge Greer himself and try to convince him that he was wrong, and should undo his own rulings. Judge Greer has proven unwilling to do so. The higher courts, unwilling to overturn a trial judge’s rulings of fact, have no interest in granting new hearings. Michael Schiavo and George Felos have no interest in revisiting Terri’s diagnosis, as that ruling provides the whole legal basis of their ability to end her life. Dr. Cranford has no interest in seeing his own diagnosis called into question. Dr. Bell lamented that at this point, "medical realities are no longer governing this case." He added that it seemed to him that medical issues concerning the care of the patient had been subsumed by legal issues. In our courts, he added, "once a decision is made they don't want additional information."

The whole history of Terri’s case over the past few years can be summed up as the efforts of the Schindlers, and those who value Terri’s life, to try to introduce additional information before the courts and other authorities. Some of this information consists of facts and arguments that were ignored or dismissed without adequate consideration; some has been the result of advances in the diagnosis and treatment of brain injuries over the last five years. On the side of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer, their efforts have consisted almost entirely in trying to prevent any new information from being presented or considered.

The legal system’s willful blindness to facts cannot succeed forever. The truth has a way of coming out. But will it do so in time to save Terri Schiavo? Dr. Morin said to me, towards the end of our conversation, that “the law can find a way to do the right thing if it wants to.” The problem so far is that those who have the power to do the right thing seem to have no desire or inclination to do so.

Posted by Butch Lynch at March 21, 2005 2:53 PM

On the subject of trying to second guess whether one who cannot speak for him/herself feels pain:

They used to (and might still) do surgery on newborns without pain medication believing they do not feel pain.

Including circumcision.

Anyone want to test the theory and let us know?

Posted by ginabina at March 21, 2005 2:53 PM

Ok Curtis:

If I take a 12 gauge shotgun, place it against the back of your skull an squeeze the trigger you won't notice it either. So can I kill you?

Posted by Paul at March 21, 2005 2:54 PM

The Left should be proud. Starving a helpless, hospital-bound woman to death so her adulter husband can enjoy unimpeded use of her money. But no one has the guts to give her a lethal injection or at least blow her brains out, a much more humane way to die. One less undeseriable. Make no mistake: In the Leftist mind, Terri's crime is to live. Her parents crime is love is try to love her and help her live. But the Borg is only interested "in quality of life." So be a good slave and sit on your hands while we purge another undesirable from the herd. Oh, you dare resist? You dare get in our way? Well you better not, or you will be next!

Posted by Ted at March 21, 2005 3:04 PM

Sure thing Paul. If it makes you feel better.

Again, my point is that if Terri has lost all higher brain function, then removing her food tube will not affect her in the same way as starving a deathrow inmate. Your comparison makes no sense.

Posted by Curtis at March 21, 2005 3:22 PM

Can you say with certainty that she is nonreactive to painful stimuli?

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 3:38 PM

Brian's comment about Right to Life writing a Texas bill that allows the hospital to remove the life support is highly disingenious.

If you read the article that he linked to, you find out that the bill was a compromise to give people a chance, before there was no law and it was left up to the wim of a judge. Now a person has a chance to prove that their loved one will improve or they can move them to a hospital that will care for them.

Now this is not the best that could happen, but as the Right to Life spokesman said in the article - with legislation you have to compromise.

Unless you are the democrats, then you don't have to compromise. You can force a debate over whether a judge has the right to starve someone to death because of the testimony of a husband that is living with and having children with another woman and who has repeatedly denied any kind of treatment for his wife.

Posted by Aaron at March 21, 2005 3:49 PM

So why does everyone think that people that want Terri to have a merciful death are on the Left and that all the people that want Terri's life to be preserved are on the Right? I haven't seen that in my personal experience talking about this issue at all.

Posted by matt at March 21, 2005 3:53 PM

1. What makes you think death by dehydration is merciful?

2. I don't know anyone who believes that all people from what ever political spectrum thinks one way. In fact, there have been numerous posts in the various threads that prove othewise. That being said, it does seem that the left lean toward killing the woman.

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 4:02 PM

So why does everyone think that people that want Terri to have a merciful death are on the Left and that all the people that want Terri's life to be preserved are on the Right?

It's not "everyone" who thinks that. It's only hysterics like Paul who want to perpetuate the myth that this is a partisan issue. In reality, the vast majority of the public, both liberal and conservative, supports Michael.

Views on this issue are informed more by ideological and religious views than by political partisanship... Fifty-four percent of conservatives support removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, compared with seven in 10 moderates and liberals. And evangelical Protestants divide about evenly -- 46 percent are in favor of removing the tube, 44 percent opposed. Among non-evangelical Protestants, 77 percent are in favor -- a huge division between evangelical and mainline Protestants... Indeed, conservative Republicans oppose involving the federal courts, by 57-41 percent. Conservatives and evangelicals hold these views even though most people in both groups -- 73 and 68 percent, respectively -- say that if they personally were in this condition, they would not want to be kept alive. Regardless of their preference on the Schiavo case, about two-thirds of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate. And majorities in both groups, as in others, are skeptical of the motivations of the political leaders seeking to extend Schiavo’s life.

Other quotes from the right:

"It's simply outrageous. It's abusive and disgraceful. Even a senator has an obligation to use his power honestly and not to engage in subterfuge and pretense." --Law professor Charles Freeh, the solicitor general in the Reagan administration.

"This is the epitome of grandstanding and irresponsible use of federal power. It's a disgrace to any conservative." --Conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein.

So don't let anyone fool you into thinking this is a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives both contribute to the majority on this one.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 4:26 PM

I'm back, had to go earn some money to feed the hamster that spins my hard drive.

mantis and Anon: IMHO it's not the numbers (47 Dems OK'd, etc.), it's the perception of Dems/liberals as uncaring about innocent life. Videos of the moonbat Dems (Barney Frank to name just one of many) using procedural games to "kill" Terri will be played and replayed during the campaigns. Frank's seat is, of course, invulnerable but the Florida Dems and lots of other Dems in Red states will be painted and perceived (fairly or unfairly and almost regardless of how they might have actually voted) as not caring about a "handicapped" woman.

I'm betting that most voters won't care a whit about the gobbledegook of federal vs. state, especially when criminals, such as Scott Peterson, get a seemingly endless number of hearings at both levels. And yes, the Reps who got on the "wrong" side of this will (hopefully) also pay the price. I know I'll be working to that end.

And I believe the above is true even if Terri's condition is (tragically) unchanged over the next year or so. If prayers are answered and her condition improves, perhaps even Mr. Frank should be very afraid.

Brian: Drivel? I'll take that as a compliment coming from someone who delivers it by the truckload.

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 4:27 PM

I don't know, while several conservative leaning people on the board want to see terri die, I haven't seen too many of the liberal usual suspects advocating for her to live.

I have to agree that a big part of this debate for the lefties is their sacred cow of abortion. And it is the socialist countries that have active euthenasia, and they have already started the cart down the slippery slope, I would prefer we not start it here.

Posted by Just Me at March 21, 2005 4:29 PM

Whoa, Julie, I wasn't proclaiming that anything was or wasn't merciful, that's a view of one side versus the other, which was part of the question, which was all I asked. I am personally conflicted over the issue and have not decided my stance yet.

Brian, that was a great response, and I really appreciate it.

Just Me: I see this as a very different issue than abortion, though, in my mind. I can see how it could be equated as similar, as not wanting to hurt the future potential for life or stop a clock that has been ticking. It's really very complicated, and I find it hard to rush to judgement. I've been thinking about how people are concerned about intervention in all cases, but it seems like if no one intervened ever in this case, Terri would have died long ago; the tube itself was the first intervention. Forgive me for being slow to take a stand, but this is a complicated issue for me. I don't know how I would feel if I was in Terri's shoes or even if I would feel. If only we could know what Terri wants or even if she has that capacity anymore.

Posted by matt at March 21, 2005 4:40 PM

it's the perception of Dems/liberals as uncaring about innocent life.

If that perception exists, with specific regard to this situation, it's because of the disingenuous way conservatives are exploiting Terri to go out of their way to frame the issue that way. It's the statements by DeLay and Frist, the headlines on blogs like this, etc. They make a point of making this sound partisan, when "two-thirds of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate". Fortunately, the public knows...

Do you think the political leaders who are trying to keep Schiavo alive are more concerned about (her and the principles involved), or more concerned about
(using her case for political advantage)?

Guess what 67% of the public said?

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 4:46 PM

I was just reading on a liberal blog (I try to read both to get both sides, natch) where many are contrasting this to capital punishment rather than comparing to abortion. Another case of deciding who will live or die. And still complicated.

Posted by matt at March 21, 2005 4:51 PM

Just Me wrote:
I have to agree that a big part of this debate for the lefties is their sacred cow of abortion.

Ah, you always have to bring it back to abortion, don't you?

Please explain why 54% percent of conservatives support removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, 46% of evangelical Protestants are in favor of removing the tube, and 66% of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate.

How can that be if this is really about abortion? (And please don't suggeset that they're too stupid or uninformed to realize it.)

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 4:52 PM

Ok, I've been pretty ambivalent about this whole issue to this point, but I think Paul just convinced me. If she was, say, demonstrably brain-dead, then I'd respect the wishes of the husband (even if he's an ass). But this is not the case.

I think we can all agree that this poor woman, while severely brain damaged and unlikely to ever recover, still has the capacity to feel pain. Letting her starve to death is unaccaptable.

Even worse, think about all the developmentally handicapped children and adults who have little (if any) more function than this woman. Should we cut them loose to die, too?

Posted by Tim in PA at March 21, 2005 5:00 PM

Whoa Matt, I read what you wrote correctly. If it misrepresents what you intended to convey, don't blame me.

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 5:08 PM

Well, Julie, besides the fact that you try to mock me by repeating my use of "Whoa," I really think that you read INTO my question. I made no statement that I believed anything was merciful, and you assumed that I did. Some people think this death would be merciful, and some think it would not be the preservation of life. I don't have an opinion.

Tim in PA, but I'm not so sure that she can feel pain. It seems to me from some of the things that I've been reading that she can't. She may or may not have barely any brain left, depending on who you believe. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like it's wishful thinking that she does. She could want to die, as Michael has been saying that she would have. And I could be wrong, but she can't live without the feeding tube, and that seems to separate her from developmentally handicapped people in this case.

On the is-it-partisan issue, it seems like Democrats are split on the issue. Even if all the Republicans agree, that doesn't seem to make it partisan.
"It won the backing of virtually all the Republicans and almost half the Democrats who sprinted back to the Capitol for the debate, while 174 of the House's 435 elected members did not vote. "

Posted by matt at March 21, 2005 5:15 PM

Guess what 67% of the public said?
Gee, ABC poll!- that pretty much settles that everybody. Let's pack it up and go home.

Posted by G. at March 21, 2005 5:24 PM

G: You're right. What fools we've been. Now that I think of it, I heard 4 folks talking about Terri on NPR and 3 of them thought she should be terminated. That's 75% on that poll.

Yep, we're definitely in the minority; fold up the tents.

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 5:49 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. Death row inmates are convicted of murder. They committed a crime that resulted in the death penalty. Terri Schaivo is not guilty of any crime.

2. Pro-choice proponents agree, do they not, that after the baby has left the mother's body, the child is an individual entitled to basic human rights? Terri Schiavo is a fully human individual whose body functions on its own. She only requires a feeding tube. NB: since she swallows her saliva, she might be able to swallow other liquids if she is given the appropriate therapy (which her husband has refused to authorize). If she simply needed to be spoon-fed, would anyone advocate that be refused?

3. Some the the harshest voices have called Terri a "vegetable," even though the tests required to diagnose a PVS have NEVER been conducted. However, I'd like to point out that even if someone feels that Terri is barely more than a "houseplant," even houseplants are given water and food.

4. Terri left no advance directive, and even if she did in fact say she didn't want to live like Karen Ann Quinlan, she isn't. KAQ was on a respirator and in a coma; Terri is neither.

5. Until a complete and current medical examination is carried out on Terri, how can anyone allow her to die? Why should anyone be haunted by "What if?"

6. Terri may not have the ability to mentality function as she did prior to her brain damage, but she is still capable of love.

Posted by goddessoftheclassroom at March 21, 2005 5:53 PM

G wrote:
Gee, ABC poll!- that pretty much settles that everybody. Let's pack it up and go home.

The point I was responding to was with regard to public perception. I tend to think that a poll is a reasonable source to cite for representing public opinion. What would you think is a better source for determining what the general public thinks?

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 5:55 PM

Yep, we're definitely in the minority; fold up the tents.

Classic tactic. When you hear facts that you don't like, belittle them and ignore them. Why don't you guys high-five each other, with a little dap to boot? After all, you've said nothing of substance.

I'm glad that at least most people involved in this thread rely instead on intelligent and thoughtful responses.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 6:00 PM

You know, I used to be one of the conservatives who thought they should just pull the plug and be done with it... who would want to live that way anyway? (I guess I don't fall into the compassionate conservative camp)... But the more I actually thought about it (instead of just reacting to a news headline), the more I realized that starvation and dehydration are not pleasant experiences. If it were me and there were people willing to keep me alive, I would prefer that to starving. That is when I rejoined the minority.

I think that, like most of the useless polls taken every day, ABC and Fox managed to get the only people in the world not using caller ID and the do not call list. People who have thought about this issue for about as long as it took to hear the pollster's question and then went back to watching The Price is Right.

Innocent life is what is important in this issue.

Posted by Chevy at March 21, 2005 6:01 PM

Brian: As I've explained to you before, the poll you cite did not provide even minimally accurate information about Terri's condition. Prospective respondents were led to believe that 1) her condition was intractable and 2) that her "wishes" were not being carried out. The results, therefore, are meaningless except to folks with your sad agenda.

Julie: Please forgive me for not taking my own advice about feeding the trolls. ;-)

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 6:04 PM

Chevy, you have a good point. But even those who support Terri's right to die don't want her to die of starvation/dehydration. That is, though, the only option available to someone who lives in a state where doctors are not allowed to provide a quicker and more peaceful death.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 6:05 PM

Paul:

First, I apologize for the brain fart that makes me type Terry instead of Terri.

Second, I am NOT one of "you guys", at least not if by that you mean liberals and/or Democrats (what is it that makes one assume that anyone criticizing Congress/conservatives must be one of them?). My mom goes to sleep every night wondering how her nice little boy turned out so conservative. I haven't been playing games for years to save murderers. I get upset at liberals manipulating the system to get their desired end result... and I get just as upset - perhaps more so - when I see conservatives doing the same thing.

As for your questions: I want to see the law followed - the law as it is written and not as we would like it to have been written. My personal feelings - about her, about her husband, about whether she is starved or injected, about whether I would want to be kept alive or not - are irrelevant to enforcing the law. For what it's worth, I don't wish her dead. I wish the husband would walk away and hand her over to her parents - but, as I've said, that's irrelevant - as it should be.

Your second question sure seems to be in the vein of 'hey liberal, what about these apples?'. Since I'm not liberal, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give you the AHA moment you're seeking. Murderers on death row wouldn't need to be starved - they should be taken immediately and shot after their appeals run out. And, if you'd bothered to read my blog as religiously as I read yours, you'd know that there's not much I would place off-limits to our interrogators, whether they be at Guantanamo or elsewhere.

And Paul, why the sarcasm.. "I know you'll answer them, right?".

Posted by steve sturm at March 21, 2005 6:16 PM

Sorry Brian, i don't mean to de-value your opinions. I just think the method chosen for Terri's demise is so atrocious. Don't You? I believe our society is capable of better than that. Life with her parents seems so much more compasionate to me for them and her. I have heard of more compassion for terroist's whom have killed or sons,mothers, sisters,fathers, brothers, etc. coming from the left. Unlike what I see that has been distributed from the left or some on the right and center as relates to this matter.
Why Brian, is it not acceptable for Terri's parents to take care of her? Michael has moved on with his life despite his oath to"... love honor and cherish in sickness and in health till death do they part". I see no honor for a man to do this for so called 'compasionate" reasons other than his own selfish wishes to move on.Wouldn't it be more compassionate to allow his mother and father inlaw to try to get help for their daughter if they wish? How does it harm Terri? How does it harm Michael?It's apparent to me that Michael cares little for Terri as exhibited by his immoral actions of adultry and children out of wedlock.Why not just divorce her? I don't believe it's because its for Terri's wishes, especially if the above story is true about the interview with Larry King?

Posted by G. at March 21, 2005 6:40 PM

Hey Matt:

I read nothing further into your post than what it conveyed. It was very poorly written. Instead of copping to it, you chose instead to get pissy with me. Now I am mocking you.
.

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 6:45 PM

Julie: I explained myself, and then you mocked me. Period. If your response would have been that you were sorry that you misunderstood me, I would have felt no need to get pissy. Instead, you attacked the way I wrote the question. Fine. Perhaps it was a bit ambiguous, although I do not believe that you could have inferred what you did with certainty from the question, no matter how poorly written. You took the offensive after both of my rather innocent posts, and that's why my last response was unfortunately "pissy." My apologies.

Posted by matt at March 21, 2005 7:03 PM

"If that perception exists, with specific regard to this situation, it's because of the disingenuous way conservatives are exploiting Terri to go out of their way to frame the issue that way."

Perceptions and polls aside, I think it pretty disingenous yourself to claim that those who wanted to write this bill did so solely for political purposes. I am pretty confident many of the congress members approving the bill were trying to save the life of a person they thought didn't deserve to die, in a way they knew how. Sure congress was probably overstepping its bounds, but the government interferes in all sorts of aspects of our lives and you don't hear the liberals make a peep. Let's consider environmental laws-not much in the constitution requiring congress to address that, but they do.

I also think one mistake in all this was making the law specific to terri, but it was a compromise.

Also, I think the real lack in all this is in Florida. I am just not comfortable removing a feeding tube from somebody who is brain damaged without anything being in writing, and I think where there is a dispute among family members as to the wishes of the incapacitate person that at the very least they should have a continuous guardian ad litem appointed to represent specifically the incapacitated person.

All of this is something the Florida legislature would have to address, and it is too late for Terri anyway, but maybe not for somebody in the future.

Oh, and I have to admit that I am very concerned with the concept of killing people who are not terminally ill, and just brain damaged.

Posted by Just Me at March 21, 2005 7:21 PM

Matt:
No, you made an error and then became defensive about it. I didn't misunderstand you so there was nothing for me to feel sorry about. And your writing was more than a bit ambiguous. No one owes you an apology because you can't express yourself clearly. And once again, I only read into it what you conveyed.

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 7:22 PM

Old Coot: No apologies necessary.

Posted by Julie at March 21, 2005 7:23 PM

Old Coot:

You claim that "Prospective respondents were led to believe that 1) her condition was intractable and 2) that her "wishes" were not being carried out. The results, therefore, are meaningless except to folks with your sad agenda."

As it happens, those are EXACTLY the facts of the Terri Schiavo's case, as determined by the court after hearing all the evidence, expert testimony, etc.

"Michael Schiavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence...The court reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo (brother) and Joan Schiavo (sister-in-law) and finds nothing therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding these discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination."

The court finds "beyond all reasonable doubt that Theresa Marie Schiavo is in a persistent vegitative state...with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses...the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegitative state."

As one other point, the court also found that, "The medical evidence before this court conclusively establishes that she has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity and that, without the feeding tube, she will die in seven to fourteen days. The unrebutted medical testimony before this court is that such death would be painless."

Don't get me wrong, I'd be much happier with a lethal injection for Terri to erase any possible spectre of suffering. Since that's not legal under the Florida statutes, though, I'm willing to stand with the factual findings of the court based on the medical professionals that testified.

So, what is your belief that her condition is not intractable and based on? Is that a faith-based initiative?

Posted by jYt at March 21, 2005 7:28 PM

>>And Paul, why the sarcasm.. "I know you'll answer them, right?".

Well mostly because you didn't.

Would you be man enough to give her the lethal injection then stand there and watch the fruits of your labor while an innocent woman died?

"I want to see the law followed " is bullshit. Answer the question.

Posted by Paul at March 21, 2005 7:29 PM

Gee, Paul you do have a bug up your rear...

What in the world is wrong with wanting to see the law followed? What's the point of having laws if we're not going to follow them? Or are they merely advisory in nature, there to be ignored by the judiciary and anyone else who wants to when we don't like the result? This goes to the thrust of my objections to what the GOP is doing: if we're not going to play by the rules - especially when we don't like the outcome - how do we complain when the other side refuses to play by the rules?

Contrary to your assertion, I don't want her to starve. Not is it patently obvious (at least to this non-doctor) that lethal injection is more humane than starvation. Giving her a lethal injection is not a legal option. Since it's not legal and since I don't know that it would do any good, NO, I WOULD NOT GIVE HER A LETHAL INJECTION.

Satisfied?

Posted by steve sturm at March 21, 2005 7:46 PM

jYt: The ABC poll was taken using false or misleading information. The poll was premised on the following (cut & pasted directly from the poll):

Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.

What are the false or misleading statements? Here are two:

1) Terri Schiavo is not (and never has been as near as I can discover) on what most of us would consider "life support". She breathes on her own. No machines are keeping her alive.
2) Only a few doctors have said she has no consciousness and that her condition is irreversible. At least as many competent physicians have said the opposite.

And finally, the polls, however accurate, are a refuge for cowards. We are discussing the life of an innocent person here. Will you accept without question polls regarding gay marriage? The death penalty? Partial-birth abortion? I think not.

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 7:51 PM

Mr. Sturm: Would you have followed the "laws" when slavery was legal? Probably not.

Posted by Old Coot at March 21, 2005 7:55 PM

G, let's assume for the moment that Terri had a solid living will that said she didn't want to remain alive in her current state. Would you concede that everything that you said is "not acceptable" would then become acceptable? That is,

-it would not be acceptable for Terri's parents to take care of her
-Michael's actions would be fulfilling his oath to "... love honor and cherish in sickness and in health"
-you would see it as honorable for a man to do this for 'compasionate" reasons other than his own selfish wishes to move on
-it would not be more compassionate to allow his mother and father inlaw to try to get help for their daughter if they wish
-it would harm Terri
-it would become apparent to you that Michael cares very much for Terri as exhibited by his actions
-by not divorcing her, he would be ensuring that her wishes are followed

If you concede to that, then this case boils down to "does she or doesn't she?"

How do you get to the truth? Let a judge decide. (After all, that's the only reason why we have judges.) Don't think the judge acted propertly? Appeal. Then appeal, appeal, appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. True, the appeals didn't reconsider the facts of the case, but 19 judges (if I recall correctly) upheld that the original judge either considered them adequately, or was definitely the right guy to hear them.

Now, you're perfectly entitled to not like the decision that came out of all that, and I also certainly don't like all of the decisions that judges come up with these days. But whether a person agrees with the decision, the fact remains that the United States is a nation of laws.

What's going on now is basically saying that the entire judicial system in America is broken, because it didn't result in what some think is the "right" answer. Well, you know what? There is no "right" answer. It's a terrible situation, but the only way we have to deal with situations like these is with our laws. The federal court cannot hear every right-to-die case. The Congress cannot draft new laws to overturn courts anytime they want. We have to trust the process, because we have nothing without it.

President Bush said:
We’re a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws. And that might provide comfort for you.

What comfort is there in knowing that a single person can be made exempt from the laws that apply to every other American, just because of public outcry or political expediency?

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 7:57 PM

Oh, I see. The polls are wrong. But if they're right, then they're just for cowards. You seem to have both bases covered there.

I agree that judges shouldn't rule based on polls. But isn't that the argument against so-called "activist judges"? That they rule contrary to the will of the people? Now we have a judge who is ruling in favor of the will of the people. Oh, wait... he's also an activist judge!

Must be very confusing. Or, perhaps the only polls that are valid, and the only judges that are honorable, are those that agree with your position.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 8:11 PM

Would you have followed the "laws" when slavery was legal? Probably not.

There's a difference between our government officials circumventing the laws that define the operation of the very government they form, and an individual citizen disobeying a law with which they personally may disagree.

Regardless of the majority party, we should not and cannot accept the former.

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 8:24 PM

Ya know I just did a big rant on how doctors aren't gods, and they are not all knowing.

I guess I need to add one to the list. Judges also aren't gods, and they aren't all knowing.

I think the judge screwed up in this one, I think he screwed up, by ignoring the recomendation of her guardian ad litem, and he screwed up even more by not having a permanent one in place.

I don't see evidence compelling enough to make me believe this woman wanted to die.

And appeals don't always mean much, after all, Dred Scott was didn't start at the Supreme Court now did it. Do you argue that the judges decided correctly in that one? Do you think they were right? Do you think abolitionists should have just given up, because hey a judge decided?

Terri is probably going to die, it is unlikely that she is going to have her tube put back in, and that the Federal courts will rule in her favor, but there is much we have learned from this-number one being if you really don't want to live like her, then put it in writing, or if you don't want your husband to murder you especially after he has found a new woman-put that in writing too, and I hope in the future, that when there is a dispute over the wishes of the person who is unable to speak for themselves, that that person is afforded more independant representation than Terri has been afforded in this case.

The right to die/eutnenasia movement has scored a huge victory, but I can't help but wonder at what cost. When are we going to start actively euthenizing those who are disabled, because they are inconvienient.

Posted by Just Me at March 21, 2005 8:26 PM

Old Coot:

>1) Terri Schiavo is not (and never has been as near as I can discover) on what most of us would consider "life support"

I'll agree with you and Paul on point 1. "Life support" is misleading. Of course, that's a new point, not made anywhere in your previous post, so I hadn't addressed it specifically. Lacking psychic capability, I don't usually respond to arguments that haven't been made yet. Good one, though.

>2) Only a few doctors have said she has no consciousness and that her condition is irreversible. At least as many competent physicians have said the opposite.

This is the "smoking isn't proven to cause cancer" defense. Physicians came down on both sides of that issue, too. However, the courts found that smoking did cause cancer, as the courts found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery as per my previous post. That is the factual finding of the court based on the evidence, and is therefore appropriate to use in the poll question.

I'd be interested in your complete list of physicians that think Terri's condition is reversible, though. Please provide. I really, really want to see how many neurologists believe that a person missing as much of her cerebral cortex as Terri is can recover.

>And finally, the polls, however accurate, are a refuge for cowards. We are discussing the life of an innocent person here...

Jump to many other conclusions? Unlike you, I prefer my decisions to be made as set out in the constitution. That's already happened here, and I'm confident that the latest, last ditch effort will also be correctly declared unconstitutional. Since you don't respect the courts and don't like popular opinion, what are you proposing as a deciding factor for this case?

Yes, we are discussing an innocent person here. The courts have decided that her desires should be carried out. You insist in standing in the way of that, and I'm not quite sure why. Why are your beliefs more important than hers again?

Posted by jYt at March 21, 2005 8:37 PM

Ya know I just did a big rant on how doctors aren't gods, and they are not all knowing. I guess I need to add one to the list. Judges also aren't gods, and they aren't all knowing.

What about Senators? Or Representatives? Or Presidents? Or you?

Are any of them better equipped to consider a medical-legal issue than doctors and judges?

No one claims that any of those individuals are infallable. But the one thing we have that is least fallable is our system of laws. Of course the system is not perfect, either. But our body of laws supersedes any one interest, any one agenda, any one political view. The laws defining operation of the judiciary and the separation of powers have survived hundreds of years, largely unchanged.

Of course, laws change as society changes. But "Congress can overrule the judiciary when they so desire" is not a law change that we should embrace.

If you get to end-run the law every time it rules against you, what good is it? And what will you say when the "other guy" wants to do it too?

Posted by Brian at March 21, 2005 8:42 PM

RE: Brian's post (March 21, 2005 08:42 PM)
Of course, laws change as society changes. But "Congress can overrule the judiciary when they so desire" is not a law change that we should embrace.

In view of this abomination, do you think it will come to fruition? If so, to what level do you think it will progress?

I just wonder how the judge (U.S. District Judge James Whittemore) who heard the case will accept the law as written - he might. I suspect (60:40) that should there be a reprieve, some fast-tracked appeals will follow with the Supreme Court ultimately rejecting the Congressional law as Unconstitutional and that will be the end of this legal saga. It's a hot potato that no one really wants to tackle, and it will be interesting to see which court finally steps in to stop the process and defend the branch.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel at March 21, 2005 9:08 PM

Anonymous I suspect Terri will be dead before anything is decided.

I suspect the law won't pass constitutional muster as it is, the weakness in this case is in the state laws, and the federal congress doesn't have much control over those.

I don't think the judge is going to grant anything, if he was even contemplating it, he would have ordered the feeding tube replaced, that he didn't pretty much doesn't look good for the Schindler's.

I also don't think this sets any kind of horrible precedent either. Even if the law doesn't get struck down, I doubt you are going to see this happening all over the place either. I really don't think you or anyone else needs to worry.

Posted by Just Me at March 21, 2005 10:03 PM

It's a sad state of affairs, that after decades of feminist triumphs, this all ultimately rests on her husband's absolute legal right to control her body.

Posted by Teri at March 21, 2005 11:18 PM

And are you willing to be the one to inject her?

If you really want to make this part of your defense of your position, you won't have any reason to complain when anti-war posters call you chickenhawk for not going to Iraq to back up your beliefs, because this is the same type of thing. Unfair tactic to use.

She's already dead. The courts will rule the husband has the right to make this decision.

As they have all along.

This isn't euthanasia, this isn't some "culture of death" thing. This is a question of who legally can make decisions regarding this womans care.

Posted by shark at March 21, 2005 11:45 PM

Brian sorry i was away for awhile. I'm sorry but I still have to disagree with you on the issues you replied on.It would still be the right thing for her parents to care for her. Better yet Michael would only be Honoring ,cherishing, his wife in sickness and in health by exhausting every avenue until death they do part, and assisting his inlaws in the same, until such time. Many other's have kept this oath.
Sorry but I don't by any stretch of the imagination see compassion as letting one's wife die by dehydration/starvation as we are disscusing here. In my town the owner of 15 dogs did that and is now in Jail.I realize that one might put a sick animal down that is suffering or beyond help, but as you know Terri is not an animal. It has not been allowed to see, if I have my facts right, if Terri is beyond help.There is/might be a possibility that Terri can be helped with therapy. Granted she will probably never fully recover. But isn't it worth a try to see if there is some hope for her? I see Terri as recieving no harm in all this.
I concede Michael was honarble in not divorcing his wife, but beyond that I see dishonor.

I believe you're wrong, there is a "right" answer to this regardless of 10 million Judges,Michael or whomever,- to give mercy and a chance at life to Terri Schiavo. Even when many decry it. I know YOU and most every person on this planet (if they have knowledge of it)really know- this is wrong.
I know of no law saying one must be dehydrated /starved to death because of their incapacitation. I realize you started your premise with there being a living will. If there were I would still believe this to be wrong. As do most here. This is not the flick of a ventilator switch we are talking about. This is a heinous,immoral way to end any Human life. Period.

Posted by G. at March 21, 2005 11:47 PM

Ha, ABC Polls...same process that was sure that Kerry was "winning" and would become President.

You cannot evaluate public opinion with any reality, specificity, on the internet. Internet polling only takes into consideration the opinions of some (who, first, use the internet and secondly, interact on any polling process -- which finely tune those being polled right there) and then also include those who participate with multiple votes (and who votes how many times, etc.)...something that internet polls don't include, just that what numbers of the 'yeah' versus 'nay' button have been selected.

They are not reliable polling processes. A lot of people never access the interent but still vote, still have credibiltiy, citizenship, all that, many more do all of that but never participate in these online polls (I don't), etc.

And, quoting Wikipedia inorder to suppose the medical condition of anyone is similar to...to...I give up. It's not reliable academically, so much as it is this thing that exists on the internet. If you want a medical education, apply and then enroll and attend and complete an education in an American accredited college/university. If you want to cite medical information in general, then find published and academically reliable (and proven) medical texts and/or opinions (still opinions); if you want to cite an individual's medical condition, for intance that of Terry Schiavo, then property evaluate her and then read the medical record. I can say here and now that even medical records have errors -- frequently.

Posted by -S- at March 22, 2005 4:30 AM

jYt: I'd be interested in your complete list of physicians that think Terri's condition is reversible, though. Please provide. I really, really want to see how many neurologists believe that a person missing as much of her cerebral cortex as Terri is can recover.

I'm not sure where to find a complete list, but here are some that I've run across in the reading I've done. Some of the doctors mentioned don't specifically speak to the issue of whether or not the brain damage is reversible, but they are on record as saying that the the tests that have been performed to date are not adequate to determine the exact condition of her brain.

From the article titled "Doctors Say Terri Not in PVS State, Could Recover With Proper Care" which can be found here:

Dr. John Young
Dr. William Maxfield - a radiologist, said CT scans from last summer show some damage but not the enormous loss of tissue described by others. "People ought to know she can be rehabilitated," he said.
Dr. William Hammesfahr - a neurologist from Clearwater, where Terri was hospitalized, is a recognized national expert on PVS and is a Nobel prize nominee.

He says Terri's eyes clearly fixate on her family and she tries to follow the simple commands her parents give her. "She looks at you, she can follow commands," he said.

"This is a case about a judicial system making an error," Hammesfahr concluded, referring to Judge George Greer granting Michael Schiavo's request to remove Terri's feeding tube.

**********************************************************************

From this article:

What you find when you examine the medical data and listen to the experiences of those who have spent the most time with Terri over the last decade is that a great deal of evidence belies the contention that Terri is in a PVS. Terri’s parents, brother, sister, and numerous other family members and friends who visit her regularly do not believe for a moment that Terri is unaware of her environment or unresponsive. At a press conference organized by the Schindlers on October 24, Terri’s mother, father, and eight others all gave accounts of how they see Terri consistently respond to people: She smiles, frowns, or acts sullenly depending on who the person is and what he or she does or says. She reacts quite markedly to music, particularly piano music, which she always especially enjoyed. A certified speech therapist asserted that Terri does attempt to verbalize and has been heard saying "yes," "no," "Mommy," and possibly even "Help me."

Even more powerful is the testimony of the numerous doctors who emphatically deny that Terri is in a PVS. The most convincing medical testimony comes from Dr. William Hammesfahr, a neurologist specializing in the treatment of brain injuries, who has spent approximately twelve hours examining Terri. At the October 24 press conference, Hammesfahr explained that Terri is able to respond to commands: She can raise and lower her limbs, although her range of motion is limited by severe muscular contractures from a lack of physical therapy for more than a decade. Doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo have dismissed such responses as reflexes. But what is most telling is Hammesfahr’s description of Terri’s response to a standard strength test: In this test he asked Terri to lift up her leg while he pressed down on it with his hand. He instructed her to keep lifting it in spite of his pressure. Hammesfahr explained how he could feel Terri pressing up against his hand with the same degree of force with which he was pressing down, so as to keep her leg in the same relative position. Such a response, Hammesfahr explained, is simply not reducible to a "reflex."

Hammesfahr has even observed her move her head and limbs into positions that clearly cause her discomfort and maintain them in order to carry out instructions he gave her. Such behavior, Hammesfahr said, cannot be reflexive: "Reflexes are designed to avoid injury. They are there to prevent pain." One has to overcome reflexes in order to perform a task in spite of discomfort or pain. .....

But Judge Greer accepted the medical testimony presented by Michael Schiavo that Terri is in a PVS and will not recover. That conclusion becomes even more dubious when you examine Felos’s well-known ties to the euthanasia movement and the background and testimony of Michael Schiavo’s principal medical witness, Dr. Ronald Cranford. ....

In contrast to the twelve hours Hammesfahr spent examining Terri, Cranford spent approximately 45 minutes. Rus Cooper-Dowda, who has endured neurologic exams himself, upon seeing the videotape of Cranford’s exam described it as “physically brutal.” He said that Cranford “clumsily poked, prodded, thumped, shoved, and pinched her.” Although Cranford admitted that Terri pulled away from him when he approached her, he did not deem that a voluntary response. When Terri moaned after he “thunked her hard between the eyebrows,” Cranford told the court that it wasn’t a response to pain. .....

Hammesfahr believes not only that Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS, but that she is treatable and could recover at least some of her former faculties. He believes, for example, that with proper therapy, Terri could once again swallow normally and take solid food by mouth. He has repeatedly advocated that Terri be given this therapy, but Michael Schiavo, who has complete control over Terri’s medical care, has steadfastly refused to allow it. The evidence for his contention, Hammesfahr explained, is that Terri does not drool. "The average human being produces one-and-a-half to two pints of saliva a day. If you can’t swallow it, you drool," he said. "Terri can swallow that amount of her own saliva, which means that she can swallow liquids." If Terri can swallow liquids, he reasons, it is quite likely that she can learn to swallow solid food again, which, of course, means she would no longer require tube feeding.

**************************************************************************

From this article:

have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs [lawyer for the Shindlers] had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools. ..........

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

"That’s criminal," he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: "How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?" ....

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, "Spare no expense, eh?" I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it "only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does." He added, "A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke."

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, "Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’ to the question, "Should Terri be given an MRI?"

But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has "liquefied," and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex "have been replaced by fluid." The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that "a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed" to make such a pronouncement: "A CT scan is like a blurry photograph." Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: "A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage." Is it possible that Terri has that sort of "massive" brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a "normal or near normal" MRI. ..........

Neurologists who are familiar with diagnosing and treating PVS and other brain injuries have told me that PVS is a notoriously difficult diagnosis to make. It requires a great deal of time spent with the patient over several days or weeks. The reason for this, as Dr. Bell explained, is that brain-injured patients have severely disrupted sleep/wake cycles. Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Fla., added that patients with severe brain injury will have greatly varying levels of alertness: "Two independent examiners may get an entirely different impression depending on when and how long he/she has spent performing the examination. For example, one examiner may unknowingly attempt to evaluate the patient during a stage of sleep. Another examiner, by chance, may find a more responsive patient simply because [the patient is] now more aroused." Dr. Morin concurred, saying that in his experience "the attention of brain-injured patients is very erratic," and that because of this he has "seen inadequate assessments even by experienced neurologists." Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors.

So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS. The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.

In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: "You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious." In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as "brutal," he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a "reflex."

"I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. "A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex."

Posted by TnTexas at March 22, 2005 11:25 AM

TnTexas: Thanks, you did some heavy lifting there.

Posted by Old Coot at March 22, 2005 12:44 PM

Thanks for the response TnTexas. I see from Old Coot's response that your items are exactly the type of response that he will slurp down without further analysis, smile, and go to sleep.

You give three articles. Two of the three were penned by Reverend Robert Johansen, an outspoken "right-to-lifer". Not that I'm discounting what he's saying just for that, but we know the slant of the articles and can expect his to only present evidence supporting that view. The other one covered a press conference for the three doctors, Young, Maxfield, and Hammesfahr.

As you point out, I was looking for doctor's saying that Terri's condition was reversible. Of Terri's condition, there are three possible positions "Yes", "No", and "I don't know/needs more testing". Obviously, the neutral position is the third. For the most part, even through extensive trying, that's the best position Terri's family has been able to get from physicians, especially neurologists. When Rev Johansen calls you up and asks you to sign on to just a little more testing, I'm not too surprised that he can get a few hits out there. After all, you're not taking a position either way. If the tests are done and the results are the same, you can say, "at least we're sure, now" and if they show more doubt, you're a hero.

It's humorous to me to see Rev. Johansen use 10 paragraphs to lay into Dr. Cranford in one article and then speak admiringly of Dr. Hammesfahr. In my previous response to the last article, I had asked, "How many paragraphs are spent on the independent doctor's testimony (appointed by the court) that was presented in the trial? How many are spent examining the background, testimony, etc of the parent's 'expert witness'?" I think that question is even more relevant now.

You see, the trials and appeals of Terri Schiavo have already featured Dr. Hammesfahr, Dr. Young, and Dr. Maxfield. They are employed as expert witnesses by the Schlinders. Let's see how their testimonies and presentations went:

The judge notes the following about Dr. Hammesfahr:

"Hammesfahr testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet 'offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim.'" and called him a "self promoter". article

In his summary of the case, he also mentioned him as, "so biased as to lack credibility."

If Hammesfahr is to be believed, there is no such thing as PVS, so it's kind of funny that Rev Johansen didn't mention that, since his arguments against Cranford are based on "obvious bias", "predetermined outcomes", etc. Of course, as I've already noted, he has exactly nothing to say about the court appointed physician, even though that was the testimony that the judge gave the most weight.

Dr. John Young is also in the employ of the Schlinders. He testified in Terri's petition for more swallowing tests. The judge found his credibility to also be compromised, since he would not say when Terri would have stabilized after the cardiac arrest and would not concede that her treating physician would be in a better position to make that diagnosis.

Finally, Dr Maxfield testified in the 2002 hearing over new treatment relief. The summary was as follows:

"all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr.Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that
smiling can be a reflex."

So, of your specifically named physicians that state that Terri could recover, all are employed or have been employed as expert witnesses by the Schlinders. All have had their best arguments for Terri's state presented and heard by the court, and all failed to elicit any response other than that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports Terri that is in a persistent vegetative state.

Transcripts for the referenced portions available at: link

Posted by jYt at March 22, 2005 9:05 PM

Liberals can't have it both ways. Democrat congressmen interviewed on Hannity and Colmes said that dems were against interfering in this case. When Hannity reminded him that 50% of dems who voted, voted for the congressional action, his reply was that they voted yes but still were against it.

Various posters in these replies have parroted that. They say it isn't a partisan issue, that liberals are for life, but also that liberals were against interference in this case.

Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite no longer control the truth. Liberals - pick a view on this and stick with it. You can't be both for and against it.

Posted by Frank at March 25, 2005 12:13 PM

Well, I have to agree that the coronation was justified.

However, I will *not* condone all this Axis-Alliance niceness! There are puppies to be saved!

Sure, *right now* we're just agreeing on little things, like how much Bill sucks. But the next thing you know, we'll both have a common enemy and have to band together for a higher cause...

Oh crap... League of Liberals...

Posted by Harvey at November 13, 2003 11:52 AM

In any war a King must be crowned......

I have been mad enough to enter the first ever contest to be crowned the King of whole Blogdom.

Now there is of course only one slight problem with that. InstaPundit otherwise known as Glenn Reynolds quite clearly is the Emporer of the Blogdom. So does the title King of Blogs contest mean anything to Glenn when you must be lower than a Mammal (in my case a slithering reptile) to compete?

Since a link from Glenn guarentees a hit rate second to none, it is my hope (a desparate one at that) the this post, and joining the Axis of Naughty and a bit of general begging, ear bending and pleading may make a difference to my position in the war to crown the first King of Blogging.

Since Glenn can't participate due to his status as a higher being and Emporer of the Blogdom, perhaps he could be like Napolean with his son (whom he crowned King of Rome) and crown me as King of the Blogs? A little support from his friends wouldn't go amis.

Posted by Adrian Warnock at November 23, 2003 6:10 PM

I'm still trying to get seen in the Alliance Blogroll. I don't show up when the code from Truth Laid Bear is used; maybe others are in the same boat?

Anyway, the only traffic I get is from members I've otherwise blogrolled and gotten links from.

Grump.

Perhaps I've failed to do something correctly? (Translation = is there an ass that needs kissing, or did I just screw up?)

Posted by Graphictruth at January 20, 2004 6:20 PM

I'm still trying to get seen in the Alliance Blogroll. I don't show up when the code from Truth Laid Bear is used; maybe others are in the same boat?

Anyway, the only traffic I get is from members I've otherwise blogrolled and gotten links from.

Grump.

Perhaps I've failed to do something correctly? (Translation = is there an ass that needs kissing, or did I just screw up?)

Posted by Graphictruth at January 20, 2004 6:20 PM

The best part about Daniel's link-whoring...if he links to you it counts about 12 times. How do you think I got up so high in the Ecosystem?

Posted by Jennifer at October 19, 2003 10:57 PM

There's also an XML version available. I have details on my scripts page.

Posted by orange haired boy at October 19, 2003 11:05 PM

Yes, I noticed Daniel's efforts. Wasn't sure whether to congratulate or scold him.

Posted by Pixy Misa at October 19, 2003 11:39 PM

I vote scold, since the guy jumped over me in the WMDI listing.

Posted by Kevin at October 19, 2003 11:42 PM

Of course, if you can get him to link to you, you're set...

Posted by Pixy Misa at October 20, 2003 4:45 AM

I make the right friends.
;-)

Posted by Jennifer at October 20, 2003 6:54 AM

Okay, Kevin and Pixy. I did something today that should make things right between us. Tomorrow you should be ahead of me in the WMDI (or next time it is updated).

It all started happening when I put on the WMDI stuff and I just really like being a playful primate - because I am. A Playful Primate, that is :)

Posted by Daniel at October 20, 2003 7:59 AM

Yer a monkey is what you are!

Posted by Pixy Misa at October 20, 2003 10:57 PM

It was still pretty silly. But a good time was had by most.

Posted by Jennifer at September 20, 2003 12:03 AM

What is a swash buckler? / What is buckling your swash's?

Posted by KitKat at September 25, 2003 3:51 PM

Arrrgh! Be ye questioning th' talk of a pirate? have ye no respect!? >:( why! i bet ye all be a couple of landlubbers.. Savvy? i yi yi!

Posted by Cap'n Paula at November 30, 2003 8:05 PM

i need lots and lots of pirate information preferrably 1600's through the 1700's and also contact info for people i could interview over the web(like historians etc...)please i need alot of secondary and primary scources.. send me a line

Posted by Cap. Tom Vane at January 4, 2004 4:58 PM

You can check out our site. It's devoted to Pirates and Piracy. History, Bio's Ships and a whole lot of fun!!!

Posted by RedGoatee at March 30, 2004 12:43 AM

Whats a swash buckler?
wanna find your pirate name? Go to:
http://www.fidius.org/quiz/pirate.php

If ya wanna talk like a pirate:
www.talklikeapirate.com

Posted by liz at June 23, 2004 3:20 PM