« Curses | Main | Bonfire of the Vanities - Reminder »

Why is Terri Schiavo a Partisan Issue????

[full rant mode on]

You know I'm as partisan as the next guy... no strike that... I'm for more partisan than most. But why the HELL is Terri Schiavo a partisan issue???

It is simple. Some people want to take away her food and let her die and the other side does not. Why on EARTH do the Democrats do this dumb shit???

Schiavo Kin Wants Feeding Tube Reinserted


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

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

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

So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....


Unborn Child? Kill It.

Sick Woman? Kill it.

Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!


And yet the Democrats WONDER why the American people don't vote for them. It's because they are screwed in the head.. that's why!

Why don't for once in their lives the Democrats just sit down and shut the hell up!?!?!?!

[full rant mode suspended... not off]

Update Let me add what annoys me most... It is not like the Republicans don't have the votes, they do... The Dems know that so they are now playing procedural games to try to kill this woman. Why is having this woman die so important to the Democrats that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?

I'll tell you why... to the Democrats, Terry Schiavo is being sacrificed on the alter of abortion.

It's disgusting.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why is Terri Schiavo a Partisan Issue????:

» Loaded Mouth linked with Today's vegetable discussion

» Powerpundit linked with Republicans In The House Fail Terri Schiavo

» respublica linked with Terri Schiavo part 2

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with The Party of Death, Part II

» Commonwealth Conservative linked with Yes

» CollegePundit linked with Partisan Politics and Saving Lives

» LifeTrek linked with Adding Disgust to Disgusting!

» Plains Feeder linked with Terry Schiavo

» The Politicker linked with The Democrats Just Lost My Vote

Comments (91)

Outside of Congress, this i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Outside of Congress, this is not a partisan issue. 65% of Americans think Michael should be making the decisions for Terri. Only 2-4% think the government should be. 87% of Americans would not want to be kept alive if they were in Terri's condition. 59% think Terri's feeding tube should be removed. 74% would want their own guardian to remove the tube.

You think the way to settle things is for Democrats to sit down and shut up. But you fail to see that things would be more properly settled if the Republicans would, instead, sit down and shut the hell up.

You're upset the Democrats blocked a vote, forcing Republicans to scramble? Well let's have the Republicans stop scrambling, and then the Democrats won't have to block a vote.

You're way out of the mainstream on this one.

Then who is in the majority... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Then who is in the majority asshole?

What is scary is the Dems a... (Below threshold)

What is scary is the Dems are becoming the party of euthansia and eugenics. It's only recently I've been looking at the facts NOT covered by the MSM in Terri's case. One of the scariest is the (dare I say) Mengele-like Dr. Cranford ... the pro-euthanisa doctor who after seeing Terri for 45 minutes pronounced her PVS. His views are startling on all "brain damaged" people:

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.

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.

This man is downright scary. What the hell???!!!

The Dems know that so th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Dems know that so they are now playing procedural games to try to kill this woman

The Dems are playing procedural games?! I'm laughing out loud at that one! The reason the bill is currently on hold is because the Republicans failed to ram it through at midnight, using a bit of chicanery in which they hoped no Democrat would be available to object. They were wrong, so they withdrew to plan their next "game".

This bill has been described with the terms "emergency powers", "special Palm Sunday session", "unprecedented congressional action", and "arcane legislative maneuvers". The Republicans are the ones playing games. The Democrats are simply voting "no".

BrianI dare say th... (Below threshold)

Brian

I dare say the majority of Americans are unaware that Terri never had the minimal medical standard of determining PVS and the Greer has refused to even read the objections from neurologists that contradict pro-eugenics Dr. Cranford.

I know I was ambivalent about this case until I read she never received MRI and PET scans. We are going to starve to death someone based on the obviously conflict-of-interest word of Michael, Felos and Cranford?

Jaysus on a Pony, a typical murderer on death row gets a far clearer and less prejudiced review of their case than Terri ever had!

Keep going Brian... Let's m... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Keep going Brian... Let's make sure the Dems are known as the party who want to kill innocents... That will get you lots of votes.

You'll be back in the majority in no time!

NOT!

BrianIf Terri is k... (Below threshold)

Brian

If Terri is killed in part due to Dem obstructionism, I say a good case can be made that among all their other obvious failings, they are pro-eugenics.

Steven Hawking should be very afraid...he falls under Cranfords definition of an "animal".

Paul wrote:Then w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Paul wrote:
Then who is in the majority asshole?

What's the matter, you can't read poll numbers? The majority is the 98% who say the government should not be making this decsion. The majority is the 87% who say they would not want to be kept alive in Terri's condition. The majority is the 65% who say that Michael should be making decisions for Terri. The majority is the 74% who say that Terri's feeding tube should be removed.

Hope that answers your question sufficiently.

Darleen, another term for "... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Darleen, another term for "obstructionism" is "voting no". There is a reason things must be voted on, and not just rammed through by the majority party. Our Congress was created so that oppostition parties could... oppose. I'm sorry that the Republicans can't appreciate the way America was designed to work.

Maybe the best thing to com... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

Maybe the best thing to come outta this goddamn mess is that we end up agreeing the only logical course of action.

Kill Democrats!

What a bunch or Commie A-holes.

I don't care what happens to her. Not MY BUSINESS, and really, NOT MY PRESIDENT'S either, but he's a moral man and trying to make a point. It's the families to sort out really. Le tthem do it. I just hope it's not my tax dollars that have been paying to keep that vegetable alive.

If Terry had expressed that... (Below threshold)
G:

If Terry had expressed that she wanted to die if she got worse, which Michael claims, then why didn't she put that in writing before she got worse?

If her own family wants her to live, why should her husband have more of a say than them? He is not of her blood, her family is. They are her family, he is not, especially since he has a new wife and kids now.

The issue should be up to Terri's own family and not Michael.

"If her own family wants he... (Below threshold)
JimK:

"If her own family wants her to live, why should her husband have more of a say than them? He is not of her blood, her family is. They are her family, he is not, especially since he has a new wife and kids now.

The issue should be up to Terri's own family and not Michael."

BS.

Terry CHOSE to marry her husband. Her family was an accident of fortune. I wouldn't want my family making decisions for me, I want my wife to do that.

I would expect anyone who has truly shared their lives with someone to understand that.

Maybe the best thing to ... (Below threshold)

Maybe the best thing to come outta this goddamn mess is that we end up agreeing the only logical course of action.

Kill Democrats!

Way to stand up for life, Rob.

>>87% of Americans would no... (Below threshold)
CrowScape:

>>87% of Americans would not want to be kept alive if they were in Terri's condition.

So, are you saying that if you're in the 13% that would want to live, you had better damn well specify it otherwise the majority has the right to kill you off?

Brian, just like the democr... (Below threshold)

Brian, just like the democrats who kept complaining about "reforming the electoral college" after both the 2000 and the 2004 elections?

Brian: Polls, especially th... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Brian: Polls, especially the one you continue to refer to, are the refuge of cowards.
Of course if you ask folks about who should make life and death decisions about them and offer the choice of A) Their family or, B) The government, few will choose B. However If those who responded to the poll you cling to had even basic knowledge of the facts of this case, the results would not please you (or Judge Greer or Michael Shiavo).
The only silver lining I see in this tragedy is that the Democrats will pay a huge price for this in 2006, even if the court-sanctioned murder is prevented in time.

Geez, JimI get to ... (Below threshold)

Geez, Jim

I get to process police reports everyday where one spouse beats the beejaysus out of the other.

I suppose we should just drop those cases because the beatee CHOSE to marry the beater and must, therefore, have wanted it.

Hell, think of all the prison space we can free up by letting spouse beaters and murderers go! Hey, you married the guy/gal, you asked for it!

BrianWay to go...n... (Below threshold)

Brian

Way to go...not one word of response about the pro-eugenics Cranford and the fact that Terri never received even the minimal medical standard for determination of PVS.

I'm so very impressed with your obviously superior intellectual acumen.

Now, if the Law facilitates an action based on offing a eugenically inferior being with no review and people ostensibly cite "we are only following ord...er...the Law"... what historical society does that make for a moment of deja vu?

That 87% would not want to ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

That 87% would not want to be kept alive in they were truly in PVS, not in Terri's condtition. The poll didn't state "Terri's condition"clearly, it said she was suffering from PVS. She's clearly not in PVS, but anyone that would cite the poll and believe that she should suffer dehydration and starvation until she dies from the effects is a soulless ghoul and beyond brain dead. I would nealry advocate that type of treatment for that type of animal. Inhumane treatment is nearly justifiable for the inhumane.

RE: Paul's "Why is Terri Sc... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Paul's "Why is Terri Schiavo a Partisan Issue????"
Why is having this woman die so important to the Democrats that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?

I don't think it really is partisan except to the politically dogmatic.

I am an unregistered Independent who voted 100% Republican in every election at every level for the past 6 years. [I'm not going to disclose (globally) my previous record because it is irrelevant to the current administration and I'd rather not get pigeonholed for future debate based on past elections.] The point is that I have been profoundly opposed to the Democratic party for some while and have excoriated them publicly as well. I think a few Liberals here and elsewhere may attest to that.

On this issue and the way the Republicans have handled it... I disagree vehemently. The polls, for what they're worth and I admit they aren't worth that much, indicate that most of the country would prefer that the spouse be primary guardian for issues of health and the catastrophic loss of it by a loved one. Further, an overwhelming majority believe that were they in T. Schiavo's condition, they would prefer to move on to the afterlife, whatever its manifestation. I have a difficult time reconciling these contemporaneous views with gross partisanship. Obviously these opinions cross party lines since the U.S. is almost a 50:50 nation (considering the population as whole) come election time.

I could flip your question around to ask "Why is denying this woman's most personal and intimate wishes so important to the Republicans that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?". See, spin works both ways.

Why not have an extensive and legitimate, dare I say honorable, debate as to what we as a nation believe to be the most reasonable solution to an uncomfortable, and currently untenable, position?

What a fascinating individu... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

What a fascinating individual Brian is. My understanding is that Mr. Schiavo was given in trust a rather large sum of money for his wife's rehabilitation. This intense effort at rehabilitation was never initiated. Where has the money gone? On that note alone and with all emotion aside, Mr. Schiavo is hardly an unbiased representative of his wife's undocumented views regarding her wishes about life. And in reality, again all emotion aside, Terry Schiave was not dying until the feeding tube was removed. She is being fed as a baby needs to be. Sure, Brian, at Terry's age maybe she SHOULD be able to walk down cafetria style line at the local Ponderosa Steak House just like you could and take care of herself. She cannot, but that should not become the reason for her to be condemned to starve and dehydrate her to death. People like you, Brian, show more compassion to convicted pedophiles. As a veterinarian myself, we don't recognize the removal of food and water as a means of humane euthanasia of any animal under our care. Why is this permissible with Ms. Schiavo?
Brian, you can go on all you want about what society wants, but I would be real careful about equating the majority of people feel the government should not get involved in this sort of thing with it's OK to starve someong to death. I think the majority of Americans are OK about pro-choice when it comes to abortions. But it is also likely, the majority are really turned off by the concept of a partial birth abortion. I know many pro-choice individuals who would vote against candidates that support partial birth abortions because they (maybe not you but they) see that as an extreme position. Brian, you are just plain (and I am sorry to say this) dumb!

AnonymousI myself ... (Below threshold)

Anonymous

I myself was pretty ambivalent about Terri's case until I found out facts that are just not covered in most MSM summaries.

1) Terri had no living will and "her wishes" are based solely on Michael's "recollection" a couple of YEARS after her indicident.

2) She never had an MRI and PET

3) Standard treatment and therapy for a braindamaged patient have been consistently resisted by Michael almost immediately after receiving the malpractice judgement.

4) Terri had only briefly her own attorney, which Greet dismissed and refused to allow her another one

Like most people, I once accepted that Terri had received all standard medical tests and court protections and it was ONLY her parents that refused to face her PVS. How wrong I was to assume the MSM was leaving out disturbing things like Dr. Cranford's "brain damaged people should be stripped of Constitutional rights' background and advocacy.

Questions about Michael Sch... (Below threshold)
dillon:

Questions about Michael Schiavo

1) Is he a bigamist? If he was not legally married to Terri he would be the common-law husband of his live-in who he has two children with. Do the laws that give spousal control over life and death matters, apply to this situation. Clearly his loyalty is divided.

2) Why does he call his live-in his fiancée. Doesn’t that designation undermine his husbandly claims to Terri.

3) Why won’t he just divorce Terri? Are Michael and his live-in Catholics? In that case he cannot marry his live-in in the Church until Terri is dead.

I realize that some of this is harsh, but not as harsh as he has treated Terri.

The poll referred to has in... (Below threshold)
Commentator:

The poll referred to has incorrect questions. Life support - machines breathing for you etc. is not even a factor is this situation.

The fact is this woman has not been adequately evaluated. Period. Why is it that anyone would have a problem with evaluating her? We would evaulate a convicted criminal. Why not this woman? How irresponsible of Judge Greer.

Why after 7 years, did her husband bring up her wishes? Why didn't he bring them up the week after her heart attack? Anyone who believes this man has her best interest at heart is a fool. His testimony is heresay and I daresay fabricated.

Become informed, people. Get all the facts. For one thing, listen to the interview with the woman who dated Michael Schiavo after his wife's heart attack. She said the two of them would fight and he would tell the girlfriend that he would rather be with his wife the way she was than with the girlfriend. The woman said he was emotionally abusive to her and from what he said about his relationship with his wife (whom he called "fatty" and who was bulemic), he was emotionally abusive to her as well. The interview is chilling.
Strange that a woman would have a heart attack in her 20's. Strange that this "husband" wants her dead and cremated ASAP. Half the money that was awarded to Terry for rehabilitation has been spent on legal fees to end her life. This woman has not had rehab yet.
God bless her.

Brian, you ignorant tool, <... (Below threshold)
Beth:

Brian, you ignorant tool,
The only reason why the polls are as they are is because most people are as ignorant of the facts about Terri as you are.

And YES, the Left IS playing partisan bullshit with this. Paul is right--to them, it's a Religious Right issue. Nevermind those pesky disability activists (not exactly right-wingers for the most part) who feel even more strongly about the case.

You're blinded by your simple-minded ideology. Fortunately, I have found TWO (huge numbers, huh) liberals who support Terri because they aren't afraid to stand up for what's right even if it's not the Party Line™. One of them is even a professed "ardent liberal" lesbian. She's no puppet of the Religious Right!

This ignorance is going to make my head explode.

And to Anonymous Drivel--can you explain why it took over three years for Michael Schiavo to start saying Terri wouldn't want to live like this, and only after the malpractice money was awarded? Are you SO sure she REALLY said she didn't want to live?

Darleen, good points. Here's more on what you said about her diagnosis (which I'm sure you've seen yourself, but for others who haven't) via BlogsForTerri:

Medical facts about Terri

I read that the husband was... (Below threshold)
Julie:

I read that the husband wasn't even aware that his wife was bulemic. If true, how much did he know, or even care to know, about her? Bulemia is not something so easily hidden.

I've been silent for awhile... (Below threshold)

I've been silent for awhile as I watch these events unfold. Most troubling to me is the patent disregard towards the facts that has been exhibited by those who wish to "allow" (in quotes because forced dehydration is an active measure to bring about death) Terri to die. I've heard people say that she is brain dead, or that she can't breathe on her own. These statements are either absolute lies, or the products of ignorance.

Further, the "loving husband" in this case has moved on and has made a family with his fiance--taken up residence, had children, etc--yet he insists upon being considered the person "closest" to Terri, and therefore the person who should be able to make this type of decision towards her care. I'm waiting for some open and honest speculation as to why, if not for the monetary benefits, he's unwilling to step aside, move on with his life, and let Terri's family take up care--something they have indicated they are more than willing to do.

I find in personally talking to people about this case that many are initially quite solid in their thoughts that she be "allowed" to die, or at most torn between the two sides, seem to change their stance dramatically when they learn some of the pertinent facts--most notably the fact that Michael has a family by his fiance.

All that would be required to put all this to rest is for a voice of reason in the judiciary to make the ruling that the law concerning spousal rights as they apply to this case don't apply when the spouse is estranged, and that the patient's next-of-kin would assume that position in that case.

Why would that be so terrible? I think that would fit quite appropriately into the scope of interpretation (which is, by the way, the realm of the judiciary), and would also close a "loophole" in the current law. I sincerely doubt that many people would want their fate in the hands of an estranged spouse.

Now, I'm not particularly pleased that this matter has come down to a power-play featuring the executive and legislative branches of government going head-to-head with the judicial branch, but when the court system seems to totally shun such a common-sensical approach to a matter, something must be done, even if it stretches the constitutional limits of power of the other branches.

I'll close by saying that all this stands in remarkably stark contrast to Florida authorities putting the man who confessed to abducting, violating and killing a third-grader under suicide watch and protective isolated confinement.

Hi Darleen,I appre... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Hi Darleen,

I appreciate the content and consideration of your post. I really do. I had been avoiding much of this case and only recently started paying attention since the issues therein only recently started touching my consciousness, and family, directly.

I have found that the best material for review to formulate opinion is legal documentation and that is to what I refer as supportable evidence. The MSM may color red and blue and I find it only valid if it provides times, dates, and references to source documentation; otherwise, it is likely tainted based on the publisher's/editor's point of view. That applies to columnists as well. While I value their opinion, it remains opinion. I'll not postulate based on such weak foundation no matter how sincere the author.

I have a perhaps naive faith that the Judiciary processed this case within the boundaries of law and that the conclusions derived are as equitable as can be ascertained. This case has been revisited for 15 years and adjudicated repeatedly. Is our system so corrupt and incapable that even after this much review, not enough has been done?

Now, Congress wants to say that despite State law and Federal appeals that a Federal court should step in again and revisit the case anew? Is some of this not unprecedented? And terribly rushed? Has this case not been settled? And terribly protracted? The legal record describes in great detail the conclusions drawn and why. To heck with what the MSM and alternate media speculate and pontificate - it's entertaining fodder and political dynamite. We have a legal framework and it has come to a conclusion. One party will not be satisfied with the outcome... that's the way this adversarial system works. Based on what I've read, the conclusions seem as fair as is possible.

Again, I appreciate your response.

Regardless of the outcome, ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Regardless of the outcome, I think there should be a criminal investigation into the matter, as there are plenty of signs of a cover-up here. And Judge Greer should be removed from the bench pending the investigation.

AnonOne of the thi... (Below threshold)

Anon

One of the things to keep in mind vis a vis "15 years of legal review" in all that time there has been only ONE "trier of fact"...that's Greer. Appellate courts cannot overrule his finding of fact (just as if a jury trial had found such fact). They can only rule on error in procedures ... ie suppression of evidence, judicial bias, improper discovery etc.

I really don't have a clue why Terri's lack of standard medical testing was ignored. It's as if judge ruled exculpatory DNA evidence out of a death penality case having already been convinced of a defendant's guilt via eyewitness testimony alone. Couple that with Greer's refusal to allow Terri her own legal advocate and I wonder what the hell is going on.

I actually feel kinda cheated by the MSM because some of this stuff was unknown to me prior to a relatively short time ago.

Has this case ever been hea... (Below threshold)

Has this case ever been heard by a Federal Court? We are hearing so much about states' rights in this case, but as I recall, up until the 1940's all church state issues were the domain of the individual states and their courts. Then it was decided that if it was believed someone's "due process" rights under the 14th amendment were being violated or disregarded that person could appeal to federal court. Although not religious in nature would not this case fall under that category? Or so Congress is saying?

Via Newsmax...A ce... (Below threshold)

Via Newsmax...

A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions - but that husband Michael Schiavo would allow only a feeding tube.

This is absolutely true. In fact Judge (death) Greer stipulated that absent of a feeding tube, you could even give her an ice cube. Visit the Terri Schivo website and watch the videos. I know what PVS is, that that is not a PVS. She smiles, she laughs and even mouths attempts at speech.

Mr. "dirt bag" husband, who has lived with a woman (not his wife - that's called adultry), has been trying to get the tube pulled ever since he got his hands on the money.

He has also been spending it (trips to the Caymens, etc), while hardly - if ever visiting Terri (personal knowledge).

He wants the tube pulled so that the cost of care doesn't squander his "fortune". That's why there needs to be review.

This is why it is important for this to go through. And go through it will.

Like it or not.

Hey Bri-Bri,Would ... (Below threshold)
been there:

Hey Bri-Bri,

Would you care to have your life dependant on a poll of the people posting to this blog right now?

RE: Darleen's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Darleen's post (March 20, 2005 05:26 PM)
One of the things to keep in mind vis a vis "15 years of legal review" in all that time there has been only ONE "trier of fact"...that's Greer...

Yes, this is true. However, the bigger bugaboo (and with no intent to discount Schiavo's dire condition) is the precedent. Are we to accept that a Federal level of "trier of fact" be instituted? Isn't every case in our judicial system restricted to one trier of fact unless a mistrial is declared, in which case a possibly new trier is involved? That's the way the system works. This new imposition has the potential to turn that on its ear.

I'm afraid that in our haste something more unsettling and infinitely more impactful may arise. When was the last time any branch of government made a temporary lurch for power only to promptly rescind after "crisis".


PS - Put on your helmet. I sense a "Chicken Little" alert.

I should clarify "Federal l... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

I should clarify "Federal level of 'trier of fact' be instituted".

As I type, the Congressional resolutions on the floors of Congress declare that a Federal court intervene as new trier of fact and supercede that which has already gone through the courts. This is different from Federal jurisdictions where there is also trying of fact.

I welcome correction if my intepretation is wrong.

All legitimate points, Anon... (Below threshold)
Beth:

All legitimate points, Anon, but I personally can't stomach the idea of starving this woman (or anyone else) to death without there being a valid diagnosis of her condition.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to compromise on the "no government intervention" idea in a case like this with such extreme implications for the disabled. Some might call me a hypocrite, but I don't care. I'm also a realist and one who can't just sit back and watch a ridiculous series of judicial rulings put a human being to death. Even the most heinous criminals on death row get fairer proceedings than she has, and more chances to defend their lives to the courts.

Also, this acceptance of the death side of the debate between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo...I just don't get why "we" would err on the side of death when there is such vehement disagreement on what her wishes were and are. Eugenics came about after this kind of acceptance of killing those who were deemed "worthless"--the Nazis were doing this before they even began with the Jews, and it started with the general acceptance of death in this manner.

I'm really shocked that there are so few liberals who care about this, but even more shocked that there are so many on the right that put ideological legal arguments above the basic right to life (as in life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...). That's where I see our side failing--putting strict anti-interventionist ideology above life.

On another note, like Darleen, I feel cheated by the MSM because I only learned the whole story a month or two ago. Even yesterday, I heard blatantly incorrect information repeated on The Beltway Boys (i.e. Terri's in a coma, from Ceci Connolly). It's maddening and it gives me yet another reason to not trust what the MSM says.

Why after 7 years, did h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Why after 7 years, did her husband bring up her wishes? Why didn't he bring them up the week after her heart attack? Anyone who believes this man has her best interest at heart is a fool.

I don't understand condemning the man for trying for seven years at rehabilitation and therapy for Terri that never had any effect. Maybe after seven years he came to the realization that she will never get better.

AnonIf Greer arriv... (Below threshold)

Anon

If Greer arrived at his finding of fact through prejudice ... ie my example of tossing out DNA just to maintain the original verdict ... should other review be precluded??

Greer found Terri to be "PVS" when such a finding is NOT SUSTAINABLE by the exculpatory evidence presented by affidavit that Terri did not receive standard medical testing.

This is not so much a "refinding" of fact, but finding of grievous procedural error on the part of Greer.

MantisTerri never ... (Below threshold)

Mantis

Terri never received any rehab. Michael even refused her standard anti-biotics for a UTI and has refused her routine dental care.

Can we stick with facts please?

You know, it occurs to me w... (Below threshold)

You know, it occurs to me why the Dems have started lining up to make sure Terri dies ...

Might have something to do with Howie Dean's declaration that all Republicans are "brain dead"

ahem

I am not an extremist, but ... (Below threshold)

I am not an extremist, but anyone would call me an ardent liberal, that is certain. Perhaps I am an anomaly, but I am devastated over what is about to happen here. To even be debating this is perverse. It is murder, nothing shy of that very accurate description. Murder. By all estimates it will take her 7 - 10 days to actually die of starvation and dehydration. Terri is being executed by calculated, cruel and inhumane measure. We do not even execute condemned criminals with such unthinkable methods. And this woman's crime? Needing more love and care than the average human being. I am sick over this. Desperate almost.

My liberal friends, my conservative friends...this is not about any other person, it is not about politics, it is not about ideology. It is about Terri and her right to NOT be executed. This liberal will hold fast to a desperate hope that tomorrow morning brings a stay of execution for Terri.


This post has been shared among many conservative sights. It has been an amazing blending of left and right. I realize that I do not have much company on my side. As a matter of fact, I have taken quite a beating from them over the past several days. But there are some incredible things happening in the "liberal meets conservative" dialogue at my blog. If you care to, please feel free to visit.

Beth at My VRWC has been a wonderful new conservative friend and pointed me in the direction of your blog.

Megan

Gee, Paul, you are on a ran... (Below threshold)
brewpop:

Gee, Paul, you are on a rant. And that's okay. It's a terrible situation, and none of us is Solomonesque. To support Terri or not to support her is a most painful, difficult question. But, there is an issue parallelling the debate that concerns me. That is, how much to we want to let the federal government get into our lives? I, for one, am a deep believer in limited government. But, if the Congress is permitted to intervene in a private family affair that should be attended within the State of Florida judicial system, then where does the intervention stop? Paul, it's a most slippery slope. And I'm most worried that the Congress will continue to legislate our lives in the future. Not a thing, in my mind, that's a good thing. Take good care of yourself, and keep writing.

Terri never received any... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Terri never received any rehab. Michael even refused her standard anti-biotics for a UTI and has refused her routine dental care.

She didn't receive any rehab?

First, in May 1990, she was moved from the hospital to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility, then to Bayfront Hospital for further rehab, then Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers try to care for Terri at home for 3 weeks, but are overwhelmed by her needs, and return her to College Park. In November 1990 Michael Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain. In January 1991, they return to Florida and Terri is put in the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center. She is then transferred in July 1991 to the Sable Palms skilled care facility where she received neurological testing and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

This is the most extensive timeline that I can find.

Can we stick with facts please?

Please, let's.

Mantis:"I don't... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Mantis:

"I don't understand condemning the man for trying for seven years at rehabilitation and therapy for Terri that never had any effect. Maybe after seven years he came to the realization that she will never get better."

Please provide some proof (a link to a reputable source will do) that Mr. Schaivo provided any rehabilitation/therapy.

Mantis: I was typing when y... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Mantis: I was typing when your post hit. I'm looking at the link now.

MantisAnd Michael ... (Below threshold)

Mantis

And Michael won his million dollar judgement when?

:::cough::: 1992 :::cough:::

naw, no conflict there. move along. nothing to see. let the man kill his wife...

Let's see... the polls didn... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Let's see... the polls didn't go your way, and therefore they are flawed. And then you compare me to Nazis and pedophiles.

But yeah, we should take you seriously.

Mantis:First, i... (Below threshold)

Mantis:

First, in May 1990, she was moved from the hospital to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility, then to Bayfront Hospital for further rehab, then Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers try to care for Terri at home for 3 weeks, but are overwhelmed by her needs, and return her to College Park. In November 1990 Michael Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain. In January 1991, they return to Florida and Terri is put in the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center. She is then transferred in July 1991 to the Sable Palms skilled care facility where she received neurological testing and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

You'll note that the majority of that is before these:

August 1992: Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians.

November 1992: The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.

I hope you'll start using those facts you're crowing so much about.

re: Brian's biased poll... (Below threshold)

re: Brian's biased poll

The wording of the poll question:

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.

Uh, yeah. Her "life support" amounts to a feeding tube. Had she received therapy to rehabilitate her swallowing, perhaps she wouldn't have even needed that.

Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.

The doctors/"right-to-death" advocates that Michael Schiavo has personally hand-picked have said that, yes. Other doctors disagree.

Darleen,I'm not sa... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Darleen,

I'm not saying there's no potential conflict, I was just responding to someone who asked why he didn't have her feeding tube removed right away, and suggesting that maybe it was because he thought the therapy would work (the therapy, remember, that you say she never had). If you want to play the conflict game, then we can consider that the Schindlers and Michael Shiavo were living together until May 1992, just before the malpractice suits were settled/finished. In Feb. 1993, not long after the suits, they have some sort of falling out and Michael claims the Schindlers wanted him to share the malpractice money with them. 5 months later the Schindlers attempt to remove Michael as guardian and therefore get control of the bulk of the settlement. Michael says they are in it for the money, they say he is in it for the money. I of course don't know who is telling the truth, but it seems both sides had at least the potential for monetary gain.

I hope you'll start usin... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I hope you'll start using those facts you're crowing so much about.

I didn't crow about facts, Jinx, Darleen did. And I responded to her claim that no rehab or therapy took place. The fact that there was a malpractice settlement was not in dispute. Thanks for playing, though.

Actually the court document... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Actually the court document I read last night (I think it may have been one you linked to mantis) indicated that there wasn't any therapy in her medical records after Feb 1993 which was a few months after the settlement money arrived.

It wasn't long after that the DNR order was put in place (which I am fine with) and not much longer after that, when Michael opted to not have her infection treated (thankfully the docs didn't let him get away with that one, and he backed off and allowed her to be treated).

After he lived with his new girlfriend for a couple of years, is when he opted to have her tube removed, and the court stuff started. He made it plain that he intended to marry his live in girlfriend as soon as Terri was dead.

Terri's guardian ad litem indicated that there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that she wanted to die and recomended against removing the tube. Greer opted to not listen to this opinion, but that has been the only representation Terri has had representing her interests through all of this.

I think there is something screwy when a man who has two major conflicts of interest wants to kill his wife, and she doesn't have anyone representing her.

Our system actually is screwy, and I would say legislators should make the effort to correct this right now, so that in cases where there is no written directive and a dispute over the wishes of the incapacitated person, that that incapacitated person at the very least be afforded their own counsel to represent their interests in the case.

Mantis also you should ment... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Mantis also you should mention that the Schindler's indicate that the dispute was over the fact that Michael had received this settlement for Terri's therapy, but no therapy was being done.

That is in the record as well.

Michael after this point was denying them access to their daughter, and doing all kinds of freaky things about her care (like the denial of antibiotics for an infection).

Mantis: Thanks for the link... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Mantis: Thanks for the link. Interesting. Please, more dialog.

There are numerous allegations of Mr. Schiavo's comtempt for his wife and disregard for her care. Statements such as "when is the bitch going to die" or "I'm going to have fun spending the money when she's finally gone", etc. Actions such as berating caregivers for doing kindly things like opening the curtains or personal hygiene such as cleaning her teeth (you must be aware that she lost numerous teeth due to decay....something that would not have happened if proper care was given). I could go on and on with these allegations but you get the drift. There are sworn statements (affidavits) to this effect from at least three of her former caregivers and direct statements from the first woman Mr. Schiavo "dated" after the "accident". If you insist, I will dig out the links to these items, but I'm guessing you've seen them.

You seem to have done your homework; Are these allegations all (or mostly) false? Urban legends? Lies by disgruntled employess or jilted lovers?

This is all about balance o... (Below threshold)

This is all about balance of power. The judiciary branch has run wild and usurped authority it never had -- intruding wildly into the domain of the legislative branch. As a result, drastic new measures are needed to correct the errors of said judiciary. That's what the Republicans are up to with Terry. They're using their constitutionally given powers to balance out the abuse of judiciary power assumed by Greet and his ilk.

RE: Beth's post (March 20, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Beth's post (March 20, 2005 06:22 PM)

Hi Beth,

I'm not comfortable with starvation either though I've heard that the pain from it varies from non-existent to extreme. Until technology improves and we can identify and tap the neural center with an electrode and know that the visualized firings correlate directly with sensation of trauma/pain, we are flying blind. Some day that will change - that day has not yet arrived.

I've also read about the interpretations of current data and the value assigned to it and the supplemental tests not performed and their relative merit to drawing a more coherent conclusion. This too is gray. Some say it advances nothing. Others say it may be corroborative. Still others say that any interpretation would remain gray. Even others say that no matter what the results conclude, there is still hope that miraculous regenerative neural growth will spontaneously reconnect in that cortex which remains and become functional - an anabolic reformation of dendrites and myelin, so to speak. I figure no matter the outcome, especially if they confirm all of the other tests, the Shindler's will want more tests or rely on hope of some future (new and improved) tests.

If I were in her shoes, I would prefer not to starve and would want my significant others, after following my defined guidelines, to medicate me heavily even to the point of death if necessary. In Florida intentional sedation to that degree is not an option though accidental might be. Officially, starvation is the only option for cases like T. Schiavo's.

I agree that Mrs. Schiavo deserves more consideration than some ruthless criminal. I just think that the proceedings over the past 15 years have been adequate. We'll just have to agree to disagree with our respective conclusions.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to enter the debate of eugenics and Nazi's.

I understand your sentiment of "strict anti-interventionist ideology" and a perception of it trumping life. I, however, disagree with this assessment. I view this as a respect for the life of the "victim" with the most honorable intent of helping them exist, or not exist, according to their last cogent wishes. We, as individuals and entities unique, have an innate right to decide our fate, and no outside force is entitled to supercede. I have made my wishes explicitly clear and will live and die according to them should such a tragedy occur. I expect my loved ones to respect and fulfill that wish and fight on my behalf those that would interfere. No other institution should deny me of my essence however desirous that they may be that I "live" according to some politically transient dictate.

You are wise to be cynical, even of Brit Hume's panel. :) I saw the episode to which you refer. However, coma and PVS are quite different, as you are aware, with coma being the "better" state of existence, which you may not be. As I understand, a coma patient may spontaneously "revert" to normal... a PVS patient will not (the cerebral cells are actually dead, atrophying, and becoming quite literally mush to the point of liquefaction as normal immunological processes catabolyze the cells and a sinus created).

I respect you position.

I haven't seen the affidavi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I haven't seen the affidavits from former caregivers, but I did see the deposition the ex-girlfriend made. That testimony was pretty damning, I'll say, but it seems strange to me that she waited for so long to say anything, claiming she was afraid of Michael. Ok, but was she really so afraid that it took her 9 years to come forward? As far as former nurses and caregivers, I would like to look at the affidavits, but I have seen the report of one guardian ad litem and references to the other two saying that Terri has received excellent care (with the second one citing a possible conflict of interest for Michael). It seems that in a case like this that is highly contested and having been drawn out over many years, for every person you find saying one thing, there's another saying the opposite (doctors, nurses, friends, relatives, etc.) So, I can't say at all whether things on either side are lies or mistakes. I would hesitate to say anyone is lying deliberately, but with all the conflicting testimony, there has to be someone not telling the truth, if not many people. And people certainly do have a point about the timeliness of the malpractice settlements and Michael's refusal to pursue therapy (I've noted before that there was already a lot of therapy, and it is entirely conceivable that Michael listened to doctors who said any more would be pointless).

For the record, I personally agree with Just Me that the most best thing that could happen here would be for Michael to relinquish guardianship to Terri's parents so they can care for her as they want to. They are the only people here that I really feel sorry for, even though I believe they are holding on to something that isn't there anymore. However, if Michael will not do that, I certainly don't think Congress should be getting involved.

Mantis: I'll get the links ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Mantis: I'll get the links re caregivers affidavits here in a few. Thanks....I'm guessing we agree on more that we disagree.

RE: Darleen's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Darleen's post (March 20, 2005 06:26 PM)

Darleen,

I hate to get in the weeds again but I guess I have to for the moment. I won't stay long.

If Greer arrived at his finding of fact through prejudice ... ie my example of tossing out DNA just to maintain the original verdict ... should other review be precluded??

Good question. Provedly prejudiced ruling? Grievous procedural error? Then a review would be in order. But is that not what the appellate at all levels should have and did address?

Did the definition of "standard" change? Is the standard a fixed one, or was it one that could have been a malleable guide to care? Quite often an entire battery of optional (even redundant) tests are available and the particular diagnostic tool may be selected at the physician's discretion. Sometimes those options are determined by the patient and his/her health plan since the insurance may only reimburse for one particular test. Other times a regime of care may differ according to the whims of contemporaneous topical literature or as technology evolves. I always remember that the practice of medicine remains just that and there is a heavy reliance on imperfect judgements from the profession. There may even be agreement that extra tests provide no other useful information and eenie-meenie-minie-moe is the doctor's order for the day.

My point is that what may seem prejudicial may not be but is actually a reflection of differing medical opinions and procedures. A judge sometimes has to trust that what the doctors have already performed and presented is adequate and that their medical knowledge supercedes his/her own. A contrarian position to the one taken by a judge may be only that... contrarian.

If Michael Schiavo was only... (Below threshold)
Pat Adkins:

If Michael Schiavo was only pulling life support like a respirator, or heart pump, I could agree with him to stop life support. The only life support Terri needs is food.

We prosecute, and sentence, people who starve to death, animals and children in other cases. How is Terri different?

Let the woman live in the loving care of her parents. They brought her into the world, let them have her exit in their control, with love and caring.

Mantis: Here are the links,... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Mantis: Here are the links, sorry my HTML is too ignorant to create hyperlinks. Would appreciate your comments on them.

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20H%20Law%20083003.pdf

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20C%20Iyer%20082903.pdf

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/AffidavitTCapone050901.pdf

This is disgusting and disg... (Below threshold)

This is disgusting and disgraceful.

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for their actions on this issue.

Oh, by the way. I had a 46... (Below threshold)
Pat Adkins:

Oh, by the way. I had a 46 year-old brother, that was in the VA hospital in Tuskeegee, AL. My brother had early onset Alzheimers, rampant in my family. They (the VA hospital), decided, on their own, to withhold nutrition. He was a drain on their budget, so they killed him!

God bless Terri's parents for trying to save her and allow her to die naturally, (nutrition until her body gives away on its own.)

AnonConsider that ... (Below threshold)

Anon

Consider that DNA testing has enormously improved over the past 10 years.

Should the changing standard of DNA evaluation where it could be exculpatory to the defendant convicted 15 years ago allow the trial judge to bar it?

Uh. No. It wouldn't. And there are many cases of convicted felons freed and exonerated due to the improved methods of DNA testing.

Should not Terri be afforded equivalent right before the court to medical advances leaving aside she isn't even a convicted felon?

Or do we take "Dr" Cranford's "standard", readily embraced by Greer, that individuals such as Terri deserve no standing before the court because she is now an "animal" and has no "personhood"?

Gee, I wonder how many Dems... (Below threshold)
ginabina:

Gee, I wonder how many Dems (and many of the readers here and "the majority of Americans" according to Brian) had any "life support" today?

My family just returned from a lovely "life support" meal at Taco Bell.

If Terri were on a machine to control her breathing and Michael stated that she wouldn't want to live by artificial means, the machine could be disconected and she would die. Period. Same with various other machines.

She was simply being FED, you morons. NOURISHMENT. What is so hard to understand about this???

I actually considered denying my own "life support" (aka. a hunger strike) when they removed her feeding tube. My husband convinced me not to because we have children who need me.

I finally agree that we are in a values war in this country and I am afraid of the direction we are headed.

The only bright light has been watching the hypocritical Dems getting all bent out of shape over "states rights" in relation to an issue of life.

Hmmmmm.....might that apply elsewhere?

RE: Darleen's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Darleen's post (March 20, 2005 08:26 PM)

About the advances in DNA isolation and identification:

A significantly improved test that can prove conclusively (at least as conclusively as scientific method may allow) one thing or another would seem reasonable. The tests for Schiavo, however, will not provide such a degree of conclusivity. In view of the absence of behavioral improvement, the continued testing seems futile. I can see the argument shifting that PVS patients should be continually kept alive (against their wishes by outside parties) until technology improves or a better test can be tweaked to detect subtle changes that, in the minds of the most hopeful, will inevitably occur.

I'm afraid my position in this regard still stands.

I have some questions for you with a broader scope in mind. Are you prepared to allow such retrials at the Federal level for every case? Remember that one-half of all litigants lose. Can the loser at this new venue appeal again? How many times? What restrictions are you prepared or not prepared to enact to limit this expansion of government interference? Should we just abolish State law since Federal can create a new trump at any point? If this is indeed restricted to Schiavo only, how would you ensure that this precedent won't be engaged again? Do you see explicit restraint in the current Legislative wording that satisfies you adequately? Do you find this law's creation to be a benign one?

At 3:33p Brian wrote:... (Below threshold)
Anna Nordin:

At 3:33p Brian wrote:

"Outside of Congress, this is not a partisan issue. 65% of Americans think Michael should be making the decisions for Terri. Only 2-4% think the government should be. 87% of Americans would not want to be kept alive if they were in Terri's condition. 59% think Terri's feeding tube should be removed. 74% would want their own guardian to remove the tube.

You think the way to settle things is for Democrats to sit down and shut up. But you fail to see that things would be more properly settled if the Republicans would, instead, sit down and shut the hell up.

You're upset the Democrats blocked a vote, forcing Republicans to scramble? Well let's have the Republicans stop scrambling, and then the Democrats won't have to block a vote.

You're way out of the mainstream on this one.

RePosted by: Brian at March 20, 2005 03:33 PM"

THIS IS MY RESPONSE:

I also agree that Michael Schiavo should, under normal circumstances be making decisions for Terri and find it very disheartening that it appears as if he has acted in ways that placed Terri in harm's way and has refused therapy for the past 10 years that had shown to be helping her. Unfortunately, there is so much evidence that Mr. Schiavo has not been acting in Terri's best interests and may have even attempted to kill her. Therefore, until this investigated, he should be relieved of his guardianship role. If I honestly answer a poll that asks me do you think Michael Schiavo should be making the decisions for Terri, well the answer is yes, he should because there is no clause in the question to adjust my answer to say YES, except in the following cases.... Do you see Brian, how any the answer to poll can be slanted by the wording of the question? Polls can either intentionally or unintentionally put a spin on things. Use your brain, Brian. Unless you also know what questions was asked and deem it reasonable free of generating a skewed response, you can't make any poll seriously.

And I agree that No, I don't think the government should be involved and I'm sorry that it is forced to be.

RE: 87% of Americans apparently said they wouldn't want to be kept alive if they were in Terri's condition. From 100s of blogs I've read, I don't think even 50% of the American people --who blog anyway-- understand what condition Terri is presently in (let alone the neurologiests) and would they still feel the same way if they could improve with the proper rehabilitation?

RE: 59% of Americans think Teri's tube should be removed... same answer as above.

RE: 64% of Americans would want their spouse to remove the tub...same answer as above.

Any Democrat or Republican who bases their decision on how to vote on the Terri's law bill on polls with no known standard of quality, does not meet my standards for being my represntative.

Old Coot,Wow, thos... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Old Coot,

Wow, those are very strange. From those reports there was an environment of fear in that facility brought on by Michael Schiavo. I would tend to believe nurses about the daily habits of patients over doctors as they have much more contact, so these statements are of considerable concern. It's very strange that they say they heard her speak words, as I have also seen images of Terri's CT scan, which seem to show that much if not all of her cerebral cortex is now fluid (I'm no doctor, though), and if that's is true she would not be able to speak.

Also I've looked at the 2nd guardian ad litem's report (1999), which recommends rejecting Michael's request. I wonder how many people he spoke to about Terri's wishes, as he cites only Michael, but the next year his brother and sister-in-law corroborated his assertions in court that she would not want to be kept alive. Greer granted Michael's petition to have dismiss the guardian ad litem and assumed the role of her guardian himself, something which many people protest but as far as I know is within his power to do (it was upheld by the appeals court).

I also stumbled upon this letter that the Schindler's sent to Michael after he denied them access to Terri following their fight/argument in 1993 (not long after the award of malpractice money). While whoever had guardianship of Terri had the potential to receive a lot of money, it does seem after reviewing those affidavits and other documents that Michael was pretty anxious for her to die, while the parents wanted her to live (forgive me if that is obvious to some of you).

Anonymous Drivel, ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Anonymous Drivel,

How do you feel about the fact that Terri hasn't had a continuous Guardian ad Litem? How do you feel about the fact that the one in her 1998 case, recomended against removal of the feeding tube, and the most recent recomended 1)that she be given new tests and 2) that she be given a permanent GAL?

Do you think these things should have been done before the removal of the tube?

I don't know, I honestly don't see what is being gained in this, Terri has parents that want to care for her, she has a husband that all but abandoned her 10 years ago (and frankly, if my husband took up with another woman, I would not consider him my husband any longer, whether I was disabled or not). I think that is one aspect of this case that bothers me. That the man decided to move on with his life, but wanted to still be in control of Terri. Moving on was his decision, but he should have moved on, and let Terri's parents take her.

Re AnonymousDrivel's post ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Re AnonymousDrivel's post at March 20, 2005 09:00 PM:

You did not ask me, but please allow my response to your broader questions. I would simply answer that the legal process/protections afforded an innocent person, such as Ms. Schiavo, be no less that that provided to, say, the rapist/murderer of a young child. Fair enough?

mantisPlease read ... (Below threshold)

mantis

Please read this

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.”

RE: Just Me and Old Coot:</... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Just Me and Old Coot:

I'm afraid I'm stepping out of this thread because the weeds are getting too high. I can't spend this much time debating every single point since so much of this is just a merry-go-round of regurgitation.

It's not that you don't bring up good and worthy points. It's just that I have waxed however ineloquently long enough to state my position and you have stated yours. For every point you mention, I could elaborate at length a rebuttal and the redundancy would persist. Then Wizbang will post anew and we'll rehash these never ending specifics (with complementary misinformation from other latecomers) again in the hopes that our respective positions regarding T. Schiavo will change. (I happen to think these continued postings are now a conspiracy to drive up traffic. ;))

My longwindedness has finally gotten the better of me and these specifics have been debated to death. I'm bowing out for a while.

Special apologies to Old Coot. Bad timing I'm afraid. I'll simply answer OK. I hope that Darlene will still provide an answer and one that is a bit more, how do I put this without offending, considered. :)

Oops, sorry Darleen.... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Oops, sorry Darleen. My typing is pretty bad.

Why are liberals/democrats ... (Below threshold)
G.:

Why are liberals/democrats such sick, heartless, demented, F--KS!!!! ???(Brian, etc. etc. etc.) (sigh)- it's useless to reason with them. They never get anything. Thats right,- smile-you sick bastards.
I believe these kinda attitudes are ultimately gonna finish you all off. :-)

The New York Times is calli... (Below threshold)

The New York Times is calling death by starvation/dehydration "peaceful," "gentle," and "dignified," and that it causes "little discomfort."

N.Y. Times: Starvation Death Not Painful (Newsmax)

I too am outta here. Kids n... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

I too am outta here. Kids need bedtime stories. I need sleep. Thanks all.

AnonOk, I'm distur... (Below threshold)

Anon

Ok, I'm disturbed by your statement

The tests for Schiavo, however, will not provide such a degree of conclusivity.

If we accept that Terri's condition came about by oxygen depravation, then the ONLY medical testing done at the time, a CT scan, is notoriously inadequate. Protocol demands MRI and PET to even begin the mulitidisciplinary evaluation of a person for PVS. Even under ideal conditions there is a HIGH risk of misdiagnosis (43% error rater per 1996 British Med Journal study). The misdiagnosis has a high contributing factor based on length of time the specialist spends with the patient.

Cranford spent 45 minutes "evaluating" Terri.

She is being railroaded into a death sentence without even the minimal protection that a convicted murderer gets.

WTH is wrong with the "kill Terri" contingent?

SOON I WILL NOT EVEN BE BO... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

SOON I WILL NOT EVEN BE BOTHERING WITH THIS SITE OR THIS SUBJECT ANY LONGER BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I DO. I'VE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION. AND AFTER 20 YEARS, SHE IS NOT EVER GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF HER VEGETATIVE STATE. HER FAMILY SHOULD JUST SAY GOODBYE AND HAVE CLOSURE.

Cindy

Cindy, then don't bother re... (Below threshold)

Cindy, then don't bother reading these comments, I stay completely out of the debate because I don't know squat.

CINDY:I've seen you ... (Below threshold)
notcindy:

CINDY:
I've seen you comment on everything all over the blogosphere. Is there ANYTHING you haven't claimed to know personally? Sorry, you're full of BS and have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't about you (nor are the infinite number of other topics you claim to be involved in) so don't think you automatically know WTF is going on. WHY don't you get your own blog and see how many people give a rat's ass about your claims to have personal knowledge of everything?
Why don't you do like Henry and not comment since you OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT THIS CASE.

Think I'm wrong? Google "firstbrokenangel".


Old Coot wrote:Ho... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Old Coot wrote:
However If those who responded to the poll you cling to had even basic knowledge of the facts of this case, the results would not please you

Well, a majority of those responding to the polls say they they are following the case "closely", so I would assume they have "basic knowledge of the facts". But you can keep calling the general population stupid because they don't agree with your values.

DaveD wrote:My un... (Below threshold)
Brian:

DaveD wrote:
My understanding is that Mr. Schiavo was given in trust a rather large sum of money for his wife's rehabilitation. This intense effort at rehabilitation was never initiated. Where has the money gone?

He was given the money in 1992. He first attempted to have her tube removed in 1998. For those six years, and in the years since, the money was spent on her care.

Beth wrote:Brian,... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Beth wrote:
Brian, you ignorant tool,
The only reason why the polls are as they are is because most people are as ignorant of the facts about Terri as you are.

The poll respondants say otherwise, and most say they are following the case "closely". I suppose they are too ignorant to know that you know how ignorant they are.

I rarely, if ever, disagree... (Below threshold)

I rarely, if ever, disagree with anything posted here. But I don't agree with one tiny bit of your thinking here.

This is one of the saddest situations a family could face, and to have every pundit, pontificater and politician using BOTH sides of the case to further their own causes is sick.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT REGARDING ... (Below threshold)
A. Reisman:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT REGARDING

TERRI SCHIAVO

I, like many of other people, have voiced my opinion to friends, family and co-worker’s regarding the Terri Schiavo case. After listening to all the controversy in the media, I decided to send this e-mail in hopes that it may just have some impact on Terri Schiavo’s right to live.

In this message, I am going to refer to some true examples to make my point, but in order to protect the privacy of those involved, I will not mention names.

#1. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE QUALITY OF LIFE?

I believe there is a huge difference from someone who is being kept alive on a respirator verses a feeding tube. If this was the case for Terri Schiavo, or if Terri was indeed in a coma and could not respond to anything, then again I may be more apt to side with the husband and emphasize with him. But Terri is a living, breathing human being that can look around, smile, laugh and feel. She is not a vegetable, no more than someone with mental retardation is.

I have a cousin who has twin daughters. This first girl was born normal. The second was born blind and with cerebral Palsy. H. was only given a few months to live after she was born, but today she is 23 years old. My cousin has dedicated her life to taking care of this child. H. cannot read, write, speak, sing, run, dance, play, sit up or even eat. That’s right. H. also has a feeding tube. Every time I see Terri Schiavo on TV, I think of her and wonder how this controversy must be affecting my cousin and the million of other parents who have disabled children. The difference between Terri Schiavo and H. is, H. never was able to do any of these things. At 23 years old, she is still very much like an infant; only she now weighs about 80 pounds. And just like an infant, H. knows when someone enters the room and talks to her. She recognizes her mother and twin sister's voices and the sound of their footsteps. She smiles and let’s out a squeal of glee that we all have come to recognize, love and welcome. H. also cries when she hurts and has feelings just like an infant. We all love her, talk to her, buy her gifts…just like you would an infant. WOULD YOU LET AN INFANT "STARVE TO DEATH" JUST BECAUSE IT CANNOT TALK TO YOU, and interact with you?

What if my cousin would decide after 23 years that she is tired of taking care of H.? What if the parent’s of any physically and mentally handicap child decide they don't want to be bothered, do they have the right to make the decision to just “murder” the victim so they can move on? That is what they are doing to Terri Schiavo. They are starving her to death. Wouldn't be more humane to use Euthanasia if the courts decide she does not have a right to live?

#2. We have laws and groups that protect animals. We can be fined or go to jail if we let an animal starve to death. Doesn't Terri Schiavo deserve as much compassion?

In the case of deliberate cruelty or neglect, humane officers are empowered to enforce the anti-cruelty laws, press charges and take custody of mistreated and abused animals. By caring enough about an animal to call for help, you have taken the first step toward helping people learn how to become more responsible pet caregivers, or removing an animal from an abusive or life-threatening situation.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=ANIMAL+abuse+%26+neglect&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D7b583b3361d9ffe6%26clickedItemRank%3D9%26userQuery%3DANIMAL%2Babuse%2B%2526%2Bneglect%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F


#3. If Terri Schiavo’s husband is allowed to determine Terri’s fate, then how will this effect abortion rights or Dr. Kovorkian’s methods of using Euthanasia for assisted suicides? Is Terri Schiavo less of a human being than a fetus or is her condition terminal?

#4. If Terri Schiavo’s husband is not in this for the money, then why doesn't he just divorce her and move on with his life and his mistress?




#5. If we can consider a bill to let ‘discarded’ kid’s divorce their parents so they can gain medical coverage and housing, Is it possible the Terri Schiavo’s parent’s can divorce Terri’s husband or “ANUL” her marriage, thus letting the husband move on to remarry his mistress?

2 February 2005
NEW BILL COULD LET KIDS DIVORCE PARENTS

A new bill before the state legislature would help kids legally divorce their families. But advocates say these kids have already been thrown out by their parents and almost everyone else.


(KSL News) -- A new bill before the state legislature would help kids who've been "thrown away" by their families. The bill allows kids 16 and older to emancipate themselves to get medical care and housing.

Some of the so-called "throw-away kids" include foster care kids, teenagers who've come out as gay or lesbian and kids who've left polygamy.

Lynette Phillips says the bill is meant to help kids in serious situations. "We're not looking at kids who want to take the car for the night and get mad at their parents and want to go to court to get divorced from their parents. You're looking at kids already living on the street that have a history of homelessness and have a need to qualify for medical and housing services that they couldn't otherwise qualify for."

However the bill may not be passed with ease this session because some lawmakers have raised concern about parental rights.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=throw+away+kids+divorce+parents&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1b676f89afbe2461%26clickedItemRank%3D4%26userQuery%3Dthrow%2Baway%2Bkids%2Bdivorce%2Bparents%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.rosen.com%252Fdivorceblog%252Findex.asp%253Fselect_case%253Darchive%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosen.com%2Fdivorceblog%2Findex.asp%253Fselect_case%253Darchive



A.R.
MECHANICSBURG, PA

You realize that the reason... (Below threshold)
Anon:

You realize that the reason why most people disagree with this, is because a bunch of people would rather starve to death that be paraded about like a meat puppet by parents who don't care what their daughter's wishes were? I know I wouldn't if I were beyond all hope, which is what Terri is. She's got a brainstem left and a bunch of spinal fluid where her brain has atrophied. The reason why she still jerks around and can breathe is because the part of her brain that regulates autonomous functions is still there.

Her parent's story has been changing over the years as they get more and more desperate - they've made it clear in testimony that even if Terri had written instructions that have the tube pulled, if they were her guadians they wouldn't because her being alive "brought them joy." That's disgusting and a violation of her rights.

And all you people calling M. Schiavo a dirtbag - he's denied several offers to give up guardianship for millions, he used most of the malpractice settlement to carry on and try rehabilitative procedures for 8 years before it was clear there was no hope. He won't divorce her because he, like several of her friends, agree that it was her wish not to be kept alive like this. He is determined to carry out her wishes, not give her over to a bunch of wackos that will still be poking and prodding her and parading her about in the indignity of her situation.

Also, it's not just one or two judges that are "railroading" her into death, it's nearly 20 judges over 15 years and many, many medical experts that the Schindlers, the Schiavos, and the Courts have had examine her. It's not like they took the word of one doctor and decided to pull to plug.

And before you start whining about death-penalty appeals, yes I'm pro-death penalty, and no they don't get congressional intervention after exhausting the appeals process and then still get denied.

And as for Pres. Bush being a moral man? HA. He should be ashamed of himself for signing into law the Texas futile care act, an action which contradicts all of his political grandstanding on this subject.

Really, the republicans all are miserable wastes of air for using a difficult end-of-life decision for political gain.

And to those of you saying you've followed the case closely - Have you bothered to look over the court and medical records? Have you compared her CT scans to those of normal people and to other people in comas? Have you made yourself aware of the full appeals process the Schindlers have gone through? The evidence presented? What do you know about the seperation of powers? Have you checked the backgrounds on the "medical experts" both sides are using? The politics of the judges involved and similar rulings in case law? Seriously, I doubt many of you have at all - you're just repeating what you've been told from whatever source instead of actually doing some research to make an informed opinion.

Most republicans, I should ... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Most republicans, I should say. Sen. John Warner from Virginia did not vote for this action because he thought it was a violation of state's rights, seperation of powers, and meddling in a personal affair. Him and others like him get respect from me for not going with the majority of their party on this.

Terri Schiavo was a stupid ... (Below threshold)
Mike Fucking Rakes:

Terri Schiavo was a stupid bitch, who was SO vain she turned herself into that goddamn vegetable she is now. So as a Democrat, a tax payer and most of all, an asshole; I say smother the bitch, let her die. Take the $85,000 a year the tax payers are forking over to keep a bitch who wanted to STARVE, and hand it to someone more noble like local food pantries. Places where people WANT to eat, and are starving not because of vanity, but because of shear hunger and joblessness that this piece of shit Republican ran Bush Administration has brought upon this country. You people want to make this a political issue? Fine, Fuck the Republican piece of shit so-called holy rolling, evangelicals and 86 this stupid fucking vegetable, to better the economy!

Why is it that common, logi... (Below threshold)
COMMON SENSE:

Why is it that common, logical, analytical sense has failed most Americans? What eyes are they seeing from...and what words do their ears hear??
Ignorance is bliss must hold true since 9/11.
Didn't you sift thru the B.S. by the federal gov't
and did you just hear, but not listen to Terry's family? Why do republicans blame democrats for T.S life? Because they weren't all there to do a voice vote on the subject--WHY NOT?
There's D___A__es stating: (1) the Dems blocked the voice vote, so the Reps could bring their butts in for a physical vote by procedure --ya darn right, if it was THAT IMPORTANT to Dems then it should have been to Reps no matter WHAT DAY it was--Bush came in, to sign.
(3rd day of no food); (2) Reps control the votes
--BUT APPARENTLY, the 4th day the bill drowned--by who votes--Reps!
(3) T.S. family SAID, "Govenor BUSH--Republican-had the power of decision to halt the removal and the final voice to approve the reinsertment of the feeding tube!
But REPUBLICAN GOV. BUSH of Fla. stated he did not want ANYTHING to do with it AND it was out of his hands. Well DAMN, maybe HE is a closet democrat, huh? So, IGs, stop the CRAP to blame someone--if it was up to REPS ALL our children would be disabled or dead because they like to play GI JOE in some foreign land that THEIR CHILDREN won't ever go--it must be due to their loyalty to their country, huh!? It's going on 14 days for Terry, REPS stop STAVING her, the highest court officials WHO KEEP ALLOWING HER TO DIE was placed in judicial office by A GOOD ole boy, down south, REPUBLICAN OR did your common sense die on 9/11 also. Next time stand in the correct line, since fear and manipulation can SO EASILY blind you, and SO EASILY make you lose ALL sense of analyzing what is TOO CLOSE to your faces.

Every fiber of my being is ... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Every fiber of my being is appalled that we are thinking about burying Terry Schiavo. Shouldn't we keep her on a slab in Tallahassee, or somewhere equally holy (if there is a place as holy as Tallahassee), until the second coming? Surely she will be Jesus' first priority when he comes back, and we need to make sure she is accessible. Do I hear an amen?

I actively opposed and cont... (Below threshold)
B Gilmore:

I actively opposed and continue to oppose "assisted suicide" here in Oregon. However, the situation of Schiavo was not a good instance in which to stake a stand against it. Plus, the way it was handled actually worked against the issues we need to be concerned about, especially the attempt to label the husband a murdered because he did not nail down the exact time he called 9-1-1. I have never done so, and never will, when calling 9-1-1. There is absolutely no need to. The record does that.

begilmore1@aol.com




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy