« Schiavo Case Ends Today | Main | "Catch and release," high-school style »

Why Is Terri Shiavo Going To Die?

Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.

Exhibit #1) This article in the St. Petersburg Times (Memories diverge on what Terri wanted), explains it all.

On the Monday in January 2000 when the Schiavo case went to trial, the Schindlers' lawyer remembers being surprised to see a St. Petersburg Times reporter in court.

What are you doing here, Patricia Campbell asked. She had no anticipation that the case would make the front page.

Back then, Campbell was working alone, without an assistant to help. On the other side was Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, who had handled the seminal right-to-die case of Estelle Browning, which went to the Florida Supreme Court in 1990.

Campbell said in an interview Wednesday that she took the case out of sympathy for the Schindlers. She said about 20 attorneys had turned down the couple, who had little money.

Campbell, who now has a prestigious AV rating from the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer peer review system, had never handled a right-to-die case. She did not have money to find witnesses, she said. Indeed, Campbell did not take depositions from Joan and Scott Schiavo before the trial. Normally, that would be a basic step for a lawyer preparing for trial.

Campbell presented just two witnesses to address the claim that Terri would not want her feeding tube removed.

[More]

Exhibit #2) This morning Florida's Department of Children and Families missed an opportunity to legally take custody of Terri Schiavo. WFTS reports:
Wednesday afternoon, Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer issued a temporary restraining order, preventing DCF from removing Terri from the Pinellas Park hospice where her life-sustaining feeding tube has been disconnected.

This morning at 8, DCF filed an appeal to Greer's order. When they did so, an automatic stay of the order went into effect, meaning that they could intervene.

The attorney for Terri's husband Michael (George Felos), who opposes any attempts to prolong Terri's life, said he suspected DCF wasn't aware of that stay until he had filed a motion for a new restraining order.

Legally Terri's family was never able to recover from that one day in court 5 years ago. Felos was just rubbing salt in the wound this morning as he continued his legal dominance...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Is Terri Shiavo Going To Die?:

» Vote for Judges linked with Road Rage on Pennsylvania Avenue

» CollegePundit linked with Denied.

» Plains Feeder linked with Legal Contortions - Moral Distortions

» Kevin McCullough linked with State Sanctioned Murder has arrived...

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with The Rule of Law - Schiavo

» Bizblogger linked with Schiavo Case: Winners and Losers

Comments (223)

!00% exactly correct, Kevin... (Below threshold)
Neal:

!00% exactly correct, Kevin. I have personally observed cases follow this precise pattern as the result of failed legal expertise in the early stages of litigation (but not on the same Schiavo issue). There were so many angles that could have been used here that could have tied-up this case for YEARS it's shocking. I often compare getting legal help to getting medical help: would I want my child operated on by a local, Florida general practitioner or would I search out and get the very best practitioner no matter where he or she practiced? The answer should be obvious. The comparison is quite close. Naturally, money can be a deciding factor. Ironically, however, I think the facts are so compelling in this case that finding a top-flight attorney to undertake their representation pro bono would not have been a problem. Finally, this is not to suggest that these attorneys didn't do the very best they were capable of doing. Perhaps they were simply out-classed in the ring.

Can someone tell me if Terr... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Can someone tell me if Terri is considered an invalid or physically disabled????

According to Michaels lawye... (Below threshold)
Darby:

According to Michaels lawyers, Terri is a Vegetable.

When I was a pup just out o... (Below threshold)

When I was a pup just out of college, I was a witness in a libel action that was in litigation for FOUR YEARS, and ended up being settled out-of-court. I was not named as a party, thank God. But giving a deposition for TWO DAYS in front of a half-dozen lawyers whose clients had been dragged into the mess has formed my highly negative views of attorneys and the American legal system. It is not only a huge drag on our economy, it leads to tragic, unjust stupitdities that leave poor defenseless people like Terri Schiavo twisting in the wind, without any meaningful protection of her interests.

I propose "National Spit-On-A-Lawyer Day," to be celebrated annually on the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's impending death by starvation.

Is it only me who is bother... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Is it only me who is bothered by the fact that a legally-blind judge -- Judge Greer -- was assigned to this case? I mean, how the hell can he make a ruling if he could not see Terri for himself? He depends on the advice of others. Is that "due process?" I know it's not PC to bring up this point, but screw PC -- we're talking about a woman's life here. And why the secrecy? Why are family members prohibited from videotaping or filming Terri on her deathbed? Why isn't the MSM demanding access in the name of the First Amendment? Why? What are the Liberals (yes, they are pulling the strings -- I saw the director of the Florida ACLU saying as much) so afraid the American people might see?

I think you are right on th... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I think you are right on the money.

Also, when you consider that Felos makes his name and living off right to die issues, the Schindler's were overmatched from the begining.

Having a bad attorney verses a good attorney makes all the difference in any type of case, had OJ Simpson been a poor man depending on a public defender, anyone doubt he would be sitting on death row right now?

Why Is Terri Shiavo Going T... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Why Is Terri Shiavo Going To Die?
Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.

OH PUUUUUUUUUULLLLEEEAAAZZZZZZE!!!!!!!!!


Cindy

Why isn't the MSM demand... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Why isn't the MSM demanding access in the name of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment grants the media the right to barge in on someone's private hospital room and videotape them?

I think most of America has... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

I think most of America has no clue, no idea, of what it's like to be in this position. I also don't think anyone has ever walked into a room of a person who is brain dead - ie vegetative state. At the age of 27, the last thing Terri would be thinking of, is a living will, so she'd she something on tv or out on a walk and chatting with her husband, she'd tell him how she felt about living in such a situation. At the time, living wills and donor cards were just starting. So the only person who would know what she felt and what she wanted would have been her best friend, lover and that man would be her husband.

There are thousands of cases like this throughout the country and we don't hear about them because they didn't have parents who splashed it all over the front pages and now all over the friggin internet. They won't even show you pictures of what she looks like today so all I can tell you is to think of Karen Ann Quinlin.

Yes, her brain stem still functions. The only thing the brain stem does is breathing, body temperature and blood pressure. Just because that grape sized thing at the base of the neck still functions, does not mean she does. She is brain dead and probably noticibly seen over the the last of the 15 years she has been in a vegetative state.

You can thank Medical Science for this conundrum. I was 24 years old when I had to make the decision for my husband to be unplugged. At one point, even Terri was in that condition. Again, over the past year, I had to push that decision through on my father because I knew this was not what he wanted. He did have a Living Will but you also need a DNR - a do not resuscitate order. And if you've been resuscitated, you have immediate shut down. Even with a living will, they will monitor your brain activity for three days before they will again, shut you down.

They are also not telling you the complete story. She is not being starved to death and without fluids- even though that is the case. She is heavily sedated just in case - one of the benefits of being in a hospice. Back when I did my thesis on eutanasia for college (in my mid thirties), I learned even more than I had after I was 24. (That situation caused me to go out and get a living will and a DNR).

You would be amazed at the lengths some people have gone through to die - and most of them without dignity. Many were not brain dead but their brain stems were dead or almost dead. Perfect example: ALS
There was a woman who actually had herself removed from her hopital bed, brought to a motel, so she could starve herself away. Starvation is incredibly painful. Although they have not said it and would probably deny it, Terri is heavily sedated. No one is that cruel and I'm sure her hospice is seeing to her care. Trust me, they didn't close the door and walk away; she is indeed being cared for. I doubt she feels anything but they'll do it anyway for the sake of the families and that of Terri.

Now if she were not in the news CONSTANTLY and was not in the news over the past years because of her parents, her husband could bring her home and arranged for her to have a shot - not unlike those they get on death row and her ending would have been quick and over in ten minutes. But too much notice about this situation has been given, so they did not have the option. All that's left is the option to starve and remove fluids but let me tell you from studying, from example, from knowledge, she is not suffering even if she could feel suffering. So instead they make this really big deal about her starving to death - not even having water without telling you the entire truth. For some one who has been in this state for 15 years and over the last 7, completely brain mush, is indignanty for her and for her family.

Her family has to move on now; they need to let go of their daughter and let go and start living for themselves right now. They have put off their lives for over 15 years and if anything was going to happen, it would have happened by now. So what they need to do is get along with her husband, plan her final body goodbyes and then focus on living their lives without Terri.

If they hadn't made such a big deal over it, they could have quietly let her die by the lethal shot which really lasts at most 5 minutes and no one would even know the difference. She doesn't know the difference now and she never will.

It's time for this country to move on - this stuff if happening every day. She's not in a coma, but in a constant vegetative state from being brain dead. It's way past time to say goodbye. And her family and spokespeople are going to make it worse than it really is. There is just so much you do not know.

This can be reproduced anywhere.

Cindy

Terri Schiavo is going t... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.

Terry Schiavo died because she had a heart attack brought on by bulemia and malnutrition. Frankly I don't care if they disconnect her or not, she's gone, and either way she can't be hurt.
It's sad to watch the personal tragedy of a family turned into a Neo-Christian circus, at least in this one rare instance, the American Taliban is belly-flopping for all to see. Ten to one, Americans disagree with Congress getting involved, see through the politicla subterfuge, and even the evangelical community, albeit by a narrow margin, isn't buying this turkey.

Well put angel.... (Below threshold)
Allium:

Well put angel.

Cindy, that had to be one o... (Below threshold)

Cindy, that had to be one of the most disjointed pieces of drivel I've ever read on the issue. I will, however, poke a few holes in that spiel.

First, there has been no "three days" of brain monitoring applied to Terri. Period. Without that type of study, we don't know what her mental condition truly is, and Michael hasn't allowed it. Also, a person is considered "brain dead" when there is no significant brain activity at all. Brain dead people don't grunt, roll their eyes, open and close their eyes, etc. Don't confuse the two. Vegetative and Brain Dead are two different situations.

Michael truly could have taken his wife home and given her a lethal shot, but he would be tried for murder under Florida law. He may have evaded conviction from a sympathetic jury, but Florida law expressly prevents such action.

"this stuff if [sic] happening every day." Oh really? how many estranged spouses are granted life-and-death control over their partners? I'd be curious about those statistics.

"And her family and spokespeople are going to make it worse than it really is." I find that hard to believe. Starving a living human being is hardly exacerbated by fighting for her survival.

" There is just so much you do not know." And you do, I guess. Hmm. Didn't know you were personal friends of these folks. Maybe you could explain why paramedics who responded to Terri's collapse immediately called for police backup and assumed this was a domestic violence case.

"This can be reproduced anywhere."
Huh?

My only real question is whether you're naturally this dense, whether you have to really try for it, or whether you've missed your medication for the past few weeks.

DS:1. What exactly... (Below threshold)

DS:

1. What exactly is a "Neo-Christian?"

2. To which poll are you referring that states that 10:1 ratio of disapproval and the stance of the evangelical community?

3. Do you really expect to be taken seriously tossing out the "American Taliban" line?

Just wondering.

I disagree entirely. Micha... (Below threshold)

I disagree entirely. Michael Shiavo has a better legal argument. You simply cannot bring the moral position that life beats death into this. A court must look at it neutrally, life and death are equally appealing for someone like Terri, which would she prefer? The court found that she would choose death. No they never recovered, from that decision, they had lost at that point. However, their lawyers were good enough to drag this out an additional ten years. To blame the judges and lawyers for this is to miss the whole point, none of this has anything to do with the legal system. There was a family dispute about Terri's wishes, the court heard the facts and ruled for Michael. Why on earth would the the Schindlers get a Mulligan? Why would a new court do a new reveiw of the facts? That is not how the system works or should work.

DS and Cindy can go pound s... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

DS and Cindy can go pound sand. Who the fuck are you to say when someone should die??? Who the hell appointed you master over life and death??? You wanna play God, then don't be stupid, be smarty, go and join the neo-nazi party. They like to exterminate undesirables too. In fact, I suggest that someone that doesn't respect life is an undesirable, like DS and Cindy. Time for each of you to be euthanized. (This is an object lesson for the deranged. It is not an endorsement of actions.)

~DS~: I'm an atheist and a... (Below threshold)
julie:

~DS~: I'm an atheist and a registered democrat who crosses party lines when voting. So, there goes your bs theory.

allium: Good. I'm glad you like it because she posts it at least 3 times a day no matter what the topic.

Brian - No one said ... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Brian -
No one said for the MSM to "barge in." A news pool cameraman could be escorted into Terri's room.

Let me make this clear -- once our courts and government take actions against a person which would result in death, then it is the people's right to know everything. Or do you favor people being held by the government without access to anyone?

One other thing: the law an... (Below threshold)
Jim:

One other thing: the law and the US Constitution belongs to us -- the citizens of the United States. Not to a bunch of shyster lawyers wearing black robes. Not political leaders. And definitely not the ACLU.

BDiddyYou are so v... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

BDiddy

You are so very wrong. Spend about 6 months in law libraries and try to find cases that aren't in law books, like the library, etc and therein you will find the truth.

My writing is disjointed when I write late at night but I still make sense if you get past the typos. WE'RE TALKIG 15 YEARS AGO.

These situations are happening every day, big mouth. And I take my medication every day. :-)

To someone who wants to take my words and copy them elsewhere, to give them permission, you let them know it can be reproduced anywhere.

15 years ago, again assole, THERE WERE NO LIVING WILLS, DNR orders, so when the police got to the house they would automatically think it was house hold abuse when it was a woman who abused herself and more than 10 minutes passed without oxygen. Things have changed in 15 years and Michael Shiavo deserves empathy and respect.

But people like you always think you're right. You have never been in a room with a brain dead individual and have had to make that awful decision. Terri was resuscitated by the paramedics (I used to be one myself) which is unfortunate and for 3 days, realizing what happened, her brain wave activity would have been accessed and the news given to her husband. And he had a hard decision to make. We would not be aware - and I'm totally sick of it - of Terri Shiavo if it weren't for her parents and their blustering on television, going to court , etc etc etc because they can't say goodbye. It's time for them to move on, too.

Ptuey!

Cindy

SteveL-You're miss... (Below threshold)
Jayro:

SteveL-

You're missing the point -- you can always blame SOMEONE. In this case it's clearly not Clinton, or liberals, or activist judges, so it must be the lawyers' fault.

jayro

Is this the same legal syst... (Below threshold)

Is this the same legal system that is competent enough to make the decision that someone should be put to death as punishment for their crime? Are we to understand that in capital cases the defendant always has access to the kind of top notch legal help that would prevent any mistakes that might lead to a wrongful conviction and an innocent person being put to death?

Or do mistakes like this only happen in civil trials?

Posted by: SteveL at Mar... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Posted by: SteveL at March 24, 2005 04:38 PM

You don't understand the issues involved in this case. In fact, neither did the 11th Circuit or the SCOTUS. I'll say it one more time for the hard-of-thinking: Terri's parents want her alive. Terri has no document describing her wishes. Terri's husband is a dick. Conclusion: Terri should live. For an explanation of why Terri's husband is a dick, re-examine his actions and ask yourself if these are the actions of a loving husband. To want to murder someone's daughter inhumanely against the parents wishes, makes him the biggest dick a woman could possibly marry. Of course, we'll be hearing anytime now from the feminist groups...{crickets}...Well I guess not.

Cindy: You are alw... (Below threshold)
julie:

Cindy:

You are always telling us you are right and no one else knows anything. Which is hilarious in that there is at most a 50-50 chance your posts are even responsive to the topic.

You have never been in a room with a brain dead individual and have had to make that awful decision.

Oh, yeah? And your proof of that is?????? YOU are not the only person in the world that has had to make a difficult decision regarding a love one.

Posted by: firstbrokenan... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 24, 2005 04:46 PM

You are one arrogant ignoramus, with the morals of an alley cat.

Rick Dement: In no... (Below threshold)
julie:

Rick Dement:

In no way was Schiavo afforded the procedural safeguards a capital defendant receives. If she did, they wouldn't be killing her.

Terri Schiavo is going t... (Below threshold)

Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.

Actually, Mike also has the LAW on his side...Ibut that's not in the script Randall Terry prepared for you.

Funny CindyHow it'... (Below threshold)

Funny Cindy

How it's been MICHAEL that's become Larry King's co host as of late.

No "Living Wills" 15 years ago? The Quinlan case was over 30 years ago you twit and that one that dealt with withdrawl of LIFE SUPPORT (not things like FOOD and WATER) got people drawing up documents to clearly and unequivocally stating their wishes.

WE DO NOT KNOW what Terri's wishes are. Certainly Michael's conflict-of-interest indicate reasonable doubt about his testimony. In this regard the Law should have erred on the side of Life and let Terri's family take care of her.

Brain-dead means no brain waves. NO ONE has argued that even from the "let's kill terri" ghouls of Felos and Cranford.

Terri's only crime was becoming braindamaged without a LIVING WILL and she's being put to death for it.


DS and Cindy can go pound s... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

DS and Cindy can go pound sand. Who the fuck are you to say when someone should die??? Who the hell appointed you master over life and death??? You wanna play God, then don't be stupid, be smarty, go and join the neo-nazi party. They like to exterminate undesirables too. In fact, I suggest that someone that doesn't respect life is an undesirable, like DS and Cindy. Time for each of you to be euthanized. (This is an object lesson for the deranged. It is not an endorsement of actions.)

Posted by: TruthTeller at March 24, 2005 04:43 PM

Pound sand, huh? You go by what the doctors say; it's not playing God, either. The person is already dead - resuscitated by paramedics or the hospital, then assessed. If Terri had an organ donor card, this discussion would not be taking place. You know once they resuscitate a patient and then assess the situation, that's when they learn the damage that has been done. If you're dead, you're dead and no reason to be on respirators, iv's, eventual feeding tubes, catheterization. Back then, they weren't taking chances. Florida is the worst state in our country regarding eutanasia. Three days after my father completely stroked out and was on total life support, I called the nurse on an early Monday morning around 2. She told me what I needed to know and she told me what they recommended. I called my father's wife and asked her why my father was on life support when I knew that was not what he wanted. They got together with her that day and shut him off at 6 pm that night 4 days AFTER he was actually dead. She even said "He has a living will" - well, you need more than that - you need a DNR and I happen to have both. Cost me $50 through a lawyer.

So truth teller, you're not a truth teller and you can go pound sand, assole.

Cindy

Is Michael Schiavo a scient... (Below threshold)
julie:

Is Michael Schiavo a scientologist?

Even though Felos was the m... (Below threshold)

Even though Felos was the more experienced of the two, I don't think it's fair to Campbell to say she lost an otherwise winnable case.

As to why Campbell only called two witnesses, was that because of Campbell's inexperience, the Schindler's limited funds, or because Campbell could only find two witnesses who would/could testify in support of the Schindlers? (I'm hypothecating: what's the likelihood the Schindler's - knowing they had a fight coming up - hadn't called as many of Terri's friends to see if those friends had anything to offer... only to come up dry?)

Maybe Campbell did blow it. Maybe she just had a bad case to argue...

Cindy:How typicall... (Below threshold)
julie:

Cindy:

How typically off topic. Schiavo was/is not on a respirator. Feed her like I'm sure you feed yourself and she will live.

p.s.: I can't believe you were dumb enough to pay $50!

You're all STUPID. Terri S... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

You're all STUPID. Terri Shiavo is DEAD. All their doing now is putting her body to rest. It's not that hard to understand and Michael Shiavo has been on TV many times before so his being on Larry King is not a big deal; it's only a big deal because it's the only NEWS ITEM on tv and on the web right now and THAT is pissing me off.

Cindy

Of course Michael Schiavo h... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Of course Michael Schiavo has better lawyers: he has access to almost unlimited funds. According to Courts to choose victor in battle over woman's life (Oct 2003):

But the Florida case has been built on testimony from Michael Schiavo, his brother and sister-in-law that Terri Schiavo made casual statements to them that she would not want artificial life support in the event of a medical calamity.

Yet during a 1992 medical malpractice trial, Michael Schiavo did not bring up his wife's end-of-life wishes and pledged to use the money he was seeking for Terri Schiavo's care and rehabilitation.

Michael Schiavo won the suit. After costs, Terri Schiavo's guardianship netted $700,000 and Michael Schiavo $300,000. Most of the $700,000 has been used for legal fees as Schiavo has pressed the case to fulfill what he says are his wife's wishes. According to Felos, Michael Schiavo has not used any of his own $300,000 for legal costs.

As with many tragedies, the only winners are the lawyers. One set of figures I've seen show that the trust fund that was set up for Terri's treatment and longterm care has paid more than $470,000 to lawyers -- so far.

And I, too, find it interesting that the "husband" sues to get the maximum amount of money out of the doctors for her longterm care. And then, later, suddenly remembers that she didn't want to be kept alive this way. I just can't get the word "fraud" out of my head.

There are also unconfirmed reports that she has a repeatedly demonstrated a swallowing reflex, but she has not been given any swallowing therapy so that she could be fed without a feeding tube. She has apparently received no therapy at all.

For the record:
1. I have chosen not to be kept alive this way, and I have stated so in writing.
2. Too much misinformation is out their for me to render a valid opinion.
3. Neither the "husband" not the parents should make the call. The "husband" appears to have an agenda, and the parents are too emotionally involved.

Hey, cindy! I'm s... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hey, cindy!

I'm still waiting to hear how you reconcile your wanting to kill Schiavo with Pope John Paul's comments on the case? What? Cat got you tongue? Or, are you salivating about pulling the plug on him, too?

JulieI NEVER SAID ... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Julie

I NEVER SAID SHE WAS ON A RESPIRATOR - SHE WAS ONCE - SEE THE TRACH IN HER NECK???

dammit girl, get it straight.

C

Jaysus on a Pony, Don, is t... (Below threshold)

Jaysus on a Pony, Don, is this what animates the "pull the tube" crowd? You've set your own litmus test that "let Terri live" = "extemist anti-abortion"

I'm PRO CHOICE (not pro-abortion) and I'm opposed to Terri being ACTIVELY KILLED when she was not terminal, not dying, not in pain and left no written expressed wishes.

What is it about Terri's parents wanting to care for their daughter that is so F**king harmful to YOU?

The Pope is also a sad situ... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

The Pope is also a sad situation and totally different - he's not brain dead.

Smarten up girl and don't address me again.

C

You're all STUPID. <... (Below threshold)
julie:

You're all STUPID.

Yes, cindy, we know. Because as you are repeatedly telling everyone, only you are smart enough to comment on the subject. Hail, cindy!

it's only a big deal because it's the only NEWS ITEM on tv and on the web right now and THAT is pissing me off.

So, is the problem that:
1. it's messing with your television viewing pleasure?
2. or, is it that you aren't getting enough attention?

CindyThank god you... (Below threshold)

Cindy

Thank god you're no longer a paramedic. You don't seem to know what the medical criteria for DEATH is.

Good lord, Cindy has readin... (Below threshold)

Good lord, Cindy has reading comprehension problems too

But it sure was a Freudian slip..looks like she's waiting around for someone to start hiding the Pope's 3 squares and water, too.

I NEVER SAID SHE WAS ON ... (Below threshold)
julie:

I NEVER SAID SHE WAS ON A RESPIRATOR - SHE WAS ONCE - SEE THE TRACH IN HER NECK???
dammit girl, get it straight.
C

You're the one that analogized it to you father being on a respirator, not me. So, you get it straight, oh demented one.

The Pope is also a sad s... (Below threshold)
julie:

The Pope is also a sad situation and totally different - he's not brain dead.

How do you reconcile your opinion with the Pope's? Are you avoiding answering the question because you know you can't? Yeah, I think so.

Smarten up girl and don't address me again.

You telling anyone else to smarten up! lol! And don't hold your breath, I'll address you any time and every time I have a free moment. Now answer the question please. Doesn't this make you a bad catholic?

Posted by: firstbrokenan... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 24, 2005 05:06 PM

Your ignorance is boundless.

Good lord, Cindy has rea... (Below threshold)
julie:

Good lord, Cindy has reading comprehension problems too

You are only now noticing? lol!

But it sure was a Freudian slip..looks like she's waiting around for someone to start hiding the Pope's 3 squares and water, too.

lol! Yeah, cindy, you willing to starve the Pope, too?

I think Cindy has been hitt... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I think Cindy has been hitting the bottle or something, because her reading comprehension and knowledge of the differences between brain death and brain damaged is way off.

"Maybe Campbell did blow it."

I think she probably did in at least one respect, she failed to depose Michael's brother and sister in law before the actual trial.

I've always said that the l... (Below threshold)
Jim:

I've always said that the left-wingers were a bunch of brain-dead jerks with metal plates in their heads. Does that mean we can start starving them to death?

RE: TruthTeller's post (Mar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: TruthTeller's post (March 24, 2005 04:50 PM)
You [SteveL] don't understand the issues involved in this case. In fact, neither did the 11th Circuit or the SCOTUS...

Do you really believe this?

CindyWhy are you b... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Cindy

Why are you bothering? You are trying to force the myopic to see past their noses. Give up and enjoy your peace.

TruthTeller

You are one hell of a moral example, aren't you? Someone disagrees with you and you resort to name calling and foul language. Thankfully we don't have moral police, and you are not one of them. You morals look to be lacking at this point.

Catchy moniker by the way, to bad you aren't a truth viewer.

Have a great day. I am, watching the meltdown. . . .

Why are you saying that wha... (Below threshold)

Why are you saying that what happen to Terrie could never happened to an innocent person accused of a capital crime? Are you unaware that DNA testing has proven that a number of people put to death could not have committed the crimes of which they were accused? If you were shown this evidence would you be for or against capital punishment?

You know, Jim, I was wonder... (Below threshold)

You know, Jim, I was wondering how much of a "slip of the tongue" it was the other day when Howie Dean the Scream called Republicans "brain dead."

I propose "National Spit... (Below threshold)

I propose "National Spit-On-A-Lawyer Day," to be celebrated annually on the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's impending death by starvation.

I like the name, but I think "spit" is a typo.

Cats have morals? ... (Below threshold)

Cats have morals?

I'd echo the sentiment that Terri died from a heart attack brought on by bulimia, not because of litigation. The "Terri" everyone knew prior to 1990 hasn't existed for 15 years, nor will she ever.

Rick I know of peo... (Below threshold)

Rick

I know of people who have been cleared of crimes using DNA, and some who's original convictions have been affirmed by such testing.

Now, wouldn't you argue that a person convicted 15 years ago should have the chance to test evidence with technology available only 5 years ago?

So why has Terri never had a MRI or PET? Or her last swallow tests were in 1993? Why is she not being afforded the same retesting that a capital crime defendant gets?

BTW as an aside, can you cite me a source for showing an executed defendant being cleared AFTERWARDS by DNA?

DavidBWell, maybe ... (Below threshold)

DavidB

Well, maybe you can answer me this simple question.

Why is the prospect of Terri living with her parents such a threat to some people?

GabrielYour premis... (Below threshold)

Gabriel

Your premise is true for lots of Alzheimer patients, too.

Do we get to starve them to death, too, just because of "diminished" personhood?

Jim wrote:No one ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jim wrote:
No one said for the MSM to "barge in." A news pool cameraman could be escorted into Terri's room.

You said "demand", not "request an escort". No one has the right to "demand" access to anything, and this surely has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment.

once our courts and government take actions against a person which would result in death, then it is the people's right to know everything.

The courts are taking actions for Terri, not against her.

Or do you favor people being held by the government without access to anyone?

Not at all. Fortunately, that's not happening here. (I'd be interested in your views of the detainees at Gitmo, but that's another thread.)

One other thing: the law and the US Constitution belongs to us -- the citizens of the United States. Not to a bunch of shyster lawyers wearing black robes. Not political leaders.

I agree completely. Fortunately, the there are judges to prevent political leaders from hijacking or circumventing the laws and the Constitution.

BoDiddly wrote:2.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

BoDiddly wrote:
2. To which poll are you referring that states that 10:1 ratio of disapproval and the stance of the evangelical community?

I don't know if this is the one DS was referring to, but the Fox News poll shows that 2% of people think the government should make the decision. Of course, that's 49:1, not 10:1. In a new CBS poll, 82% say Congress and Bush should "stay out of" the Schiavo situation.

And this poll discusses the stance of the evangelical community:

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.... Regardless of their preference on the Schiavo case, about two-thirds of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate.

Finally, for those who have challenged the polls' use of the term "life support", the latest ones ask about removal of her "feeding tube".

Well, maybe you can answ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, maybe you can answer me this simple question. Why is the prospect of Terri living with her parents such a threat to some people?

It's not a threat to anyone. It's just not what Terri wanted, and the courts are protecting her right to not have her parents impose their will on her.

DarleenSimple ques... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Darleen

Simple question and an even more simple answer. It is none of our business. The more complex answer you would not want to hear. I leave it at that.

This Just In!

DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR

Throughly discredited on local radio talk show. The good doctor, enjoying his new found celebrity, granted a phone interview to a local radio talk show, the John & Ken show on 640AM in LA.

The good doctor was asked about his Nobel nomination and who nominated him back in 98 or 99. He had a little trouble recalling and when the show hosts reminded him that it was a Florida state representative, he confirmed it.

Then when the show hosts pointed out that the only people who can nominate someone for a Nobel Prize are past winners and a select few others, which do not include Florida state representatives, he quickly ended the interview before more damning questions could be asked.

Questions like, what about that $3K billing error for services you never rendered and ending up costing you a fine of over $50K.

Chuckle. . .this guy has no credibiilty issues . . . right?

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/

You may notice that these guys are hardly liberal. . .

No John and Ken are not lib... (Below threshold)

No John and Ken are not liberal nore conservative, they are a-political for the most part.

That said, Dr. Hammesfahr has been totaly discredited long before his recent spat of TV appearences. Sadly, this hasn't stopped the conservative entertainment community from pushing him as some major expert in this case when he is just a money grubbing publicity whore.

About the Doctor...T... (Below threshold)
susan:

About the Doctor...
The Dr for Michael Shiavo the "PVS" expert is also pretty suspect. I can't remember his name. He has lost as many cases as he has won. He tried to say a guy who could get around by himself in a wheelchair was in PVS.
He is a one trick pony who can find PVS in anyone. This does not mean Terri isn't in one. But I just thought you should know before you gloat too much.

Do we get to starve them... (Below threshold)
been there:

Do we get to starve them to death, too, just because of "diminished" personhood?

You bet they do it if they are allowed to or not. FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE NOT THEROY GANG

Why are you saying that ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Why are you saying that what happen to Terrie could never happened to an innocent person accused of a capital crime?

Read what I said again: In no way was Schiavo afforded the procedural safeguards a capital defendant receives.

You don't have a clue what is involved in representing a capital case. Why you would even try to compare the two only goes to show that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Jeesh! What next are you going to lecture on? Neurosurgery?

I agree with that conclusio... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I agree with that conclusion of yours, Kevin, that Terri Schiavo's life is being concluded because Michael Schiavo had better legal helps, and after hearing today's statements on the news, seems that the ACLU and others made sure of that.

It's great that Michael Schiavo has been so well represented. And that the ACLU has been able to financially enable him to do so, among others. It's a tragedy that Terri Schiavo's life was not considered and that what Michael Schiavo desired was more important than the life of Terri Schiavo.

After listening to many legal and even some medical sources today make various statements, many of the physicians have made statements that contradict one another, even as to what they consider qualified evaluations and how and what they do not, and that various illustrious instructors in law schools can denounce "emotionally charged words such as 'murder'" while denying to describe what inducing Terri Schiavo to die actually is (what's the word, I'm interested to know what they'd call it since she isn't killing herself and isn't being put to death by society as punishment, although that last part I am today wondering about)...it's quite possible that many academics just cannot face the facts here and that they find more comfort in distance from the hardcore reality that a person is losing her life and has suffered greatly simply because someone of dubious character thinks that she should.

Amazing how "should" has now become a legal term, a medical diagnosis.

Terri Schiavo can anticipate a wonderful eternity in Heaven. God's plan for all this...I anticipate good coming from this evil.

Another thing, a bit off to... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another thing, a bit off topic to Kevin's issue here but not completely, is that the neurologist who has posed other ideas about Terri Schiavo's medical condition/diagnosis has also been denigrated and even suggested to be disqualified by others involved here (Felos and the ACLU and a another doctor, I believe I heard expressing this earlier today) because he's "a Christian" and "associated with the right-to-life movement" -- not because of his medical qualifications.

I was wondering if we as a country are now supposed to disqualify, say, Jewish physicians becuase some of them are Orthodox, for starters.

The very idea that this respected and respectably qualified neurologist can be suggested to not be allowed to be involved as to his professional opinion about Terri Schiavo's diagnosis (he's suggesting that further tests can establish just what her diagnosis actually is and that that hasn't yet happened and that there's, in his opinion, cause to suggest that Terri's diagnosis is inaccurate to-date), the very idea that he's supposedly to be disqualified "because he's a Christian" is mindblowing in statement.

I read here that ~DS~ is st... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I read here that ~DS~ is still committed to irrationality, as in describing Terri Schiavo as having already "died."

Unfortunately, rhetoric such as that -- nonsense in the fullest dimension of that concept -- has been motivational.

Dr. Hammesfahr has been ... (Below threshold)
TnTexas:

Dr. Hammesfahr has been totaly discredited long before his recent spat of TV appearences.

How has he been discredited?

many of the physicians h... (Below threshold)
julie:

many of the physicians have made statements that contradict one another, even as to what they consider qualified evaluations and how and what they do not, and not . . .

Every fact used to increase a sentence, including one that imposes death, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. ( 6th Amend, 14th Amend. Blakely, Apprendi, Ring, Booker.) There's a procedural safegurard Schiavo was never afforded.

Every defendant, not just one facing death, is entitled to an attorney. (6th Amend.)

Joser! Dude! Smokin' that s... (Below threshold)

Joser! Dude! Smokin' that sh*t will rot your brain and now you know what THAT will get you... no more 3 squares and water.

Brian: since Terri Schiavo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Brian: since Terri Schiavo left no recording of what she did want, you have no idea what she wanted or wants now.

Michael Schiavo is the only person who seems to think he knows what Terri wanted (I write, 'wanted' because according to Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo is "dead" already, suspect statement in and of itself, not to mention much other that he's said).

Without a recording for everyone to refer to about what Terri Schiavo wants, we have to err on the side of life. Listening to the ACLU and many strangely odd persons fascinated with someone dying although they're already 'dead' (it's a mystery to me how the illogic has flowed in that area), the process of concluding her life seems paramount to determing what Terri wants.

There hasn't been much exploration about that other than what Michael Schiavo and his siblings have to say about that, but to many of us, it's an unreliable social and psychological environment in and of itself. I've heard many, many people express this very thing lately.

It's not about what Michael Schiavo wants but what Terri Schiavo wants. Her parents and family want to care for her, so let them. The only downside to that is that those gloating over her death won't have her death to gloat over, in my view, because there's no explanation otherwise.

Emotionally reasoning here...

SusanIt's "Dr." Ro... (Below threshold)

Susan

It's "Dr." Ronald Cranford.

-S- No, Michael is NOT the ... (Below threshold)
Sherard:

-S- No, Michael is NOT the only one. Both his brother and sister in law gave similar testimony. Michael's sister Joan was a "close friend" of Terri's and she said they talked about the topic as many as 12 times.

At least get your facts right.

Terri Schiavo is going to d... (Below threshold)
shark:

Terri Schiavo is going to die not because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers, but because he has better legal position.

PERIOD

funny how no one in Terri's... (Below threshold)

funny how no one in Terri's family ever heard her say "If I'm brain damaged, kill me." Ever. Just Michael's family.

No written instruction, then default to life.

I apologize Bo, I just saw ... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

I apologize Bo, I just saw your comment. You asked:
1. What exactly is a "Neo-Christian?"

A Neo-Christian is a member of the extremist religous right. They're identified by the tendancy to claim worship of Jesus while rejecting his liberal teachings to attend the sick and poor, smearing and ridiculing those who do observe those tenets, and supoprt instead a political ideology which rewards the rich and powerful. Neo-Christians tend to politically support Neo-cons.

2. To which poll are you referring that states that 10:1 ratio of disapproval and the stance of the evangelical community?

I said ten to one, and albiet narrowly by evangelicals. "More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate." ABC News source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=609577 . CBS News SHOULD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT BE INVOLVED IN SCHIAVO MATTER? Yes 13% No 82% source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml

3. Do you really expect to be taken seriously tossing out the "American Taliban" line?

LOL! Yes, apologizing for torture (This is especially puzzling considering that Christ was tortured to death, you'd think even the Neo-Christians would be sensistive on this) defending the President's 'right' to whisk anyone off with no trial, due process, or even informing the family, to Syrian or Egyption or Saudi torture chambers, and basically swallowing any line the Neo-cons put out, apologizing for lies and misinformation, ethical lapses that would make Clinton blush (BTW, I've been a republican all my life, but this gang is despicable and shameful) and hiding behind a facade of religious justification, using as one's initial premise that factual data which contradicts a narrow intepretation as ascertained by violent fundamentalists fanatics, many of whom are happily predicting the end of the world any day now, is about as close to the Taliban as this nation has been in a century. Christ you see, was a raging liberal, and mandated that his followers act likewise to honor him and achieve grace. The perverted, violent, fanatical version of Christianity practiced now by the religious right and often brilliantly manipulated by the Neocons, is thus called Neo- Christianity, so as not to be confused with the original and traditional peace loving followers of Jesus Christ.

Terri Schiavo is going to d... (Below threshold)

Terri Schiavo is going to die because that's what she wanted.

The rights of individuals to assert authority over their own life and death decisions is a victory for all Americans.

If Michael Schiavo is the p... (Below threshold)
Captain Ned:

If Michael Schiavo is the proximate cause of Terri’s condition, why has the State of Florida not commenced a criminal action against him? Even at this late date, if he were charged with a crime against Terri she’d be a material witness and the feeding tube would be reinserted to preserve her value as a material witness. The fact that no such charge has been filed by a Governor who has publicly spoken of his willingness to kick down the door to her room and take her forcibly into State custody tells me that no such cause of action exists.

IOW, those who believe Michael Schiavo to be the cause of Terri’s condition are suffering from a severe case of recto-cranial inversion.

Fuck all you gouls just glo... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Fuck all you gouls just gloating over the imminent death of a helpless human being. All of you would be the first to shove a Jew in the oven. I do hope you have to go through this same decision in your life. It would be a good object lesson.

From Peggy Noonan:

.....Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo's right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having "kicked the sh-- out of the fascists." On Tuesday James Carville's face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren't a buffoon. .....

.....Terri Schiavo may well die. No good will come of it. Those who are half in love with death will only become more red-fanged and ravenous.

And those who are still learning--our children--oh, what terrible lessons they're learning. What terrible stories are shaping them. They're witnessing the Schiavo drama on television and hearing it on radio. They are seeing a society--their society, their people--on the verge of famously accepting, even embracing, the idea that a damaged life is a throwaway life.

Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.

Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

Sadly Turthteller the Neoco... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Sadly Turthteller the Neocons don't seem to hold life in the high regard you yourself do. The same folks who are grandstanding over Terry Schiavo's tragedy are the same cats who cut medicaid, and who limited medical practice awards, both of which Schiavo, and anyone else in her shoes, are critically dependant on. They're the same folks who apologise for torture, collateral damage in warfare, and the death penalty, and who enacted the Texas Futile Care Law. Apparently, some lives are more equal than others ...

Sadly ~DS~ I am a neocon. S... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Sadly ~DS~ I am a neocon. So that busts your theory. Furthermore, this is not a neocon issue, thank you, but a moral one. Too bad you don't get that.

It also forces you to choos... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

It also forces you to choose between your faith, assuming you have faith, I don't know you personally, and your ideology. You can either be a Neocon, or a follower of Jesus Christ. Too bad you don't get that, and it's sad you feel the need to resort to insults. Let's consider faith based morality in general among social conservatives ...

The question isn't whether or not you believe your personal mythology TT. I have no doubt the commentators here and many others do sincerely believe their mythology is 'the one true mythology', and all others are false; just as of course all those ones you consider false have adherents who claim the same about your own cosmogony. I have no desire to disabuse you or they of that belief whatsoever. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you defending your Constitutional Right to worship whatever flavor of magic invisible sky wizard you happen to admire. I'd be highly uncomfortable in a culture in which such a belief was illegal or in anyway restricted; but all this is predicted on the condition that you and your fellow cultists don't hurt anyone or force others to pay lip service to your shamans and holy men with the threat of imprisonment or violence. As long as you leave the rest of us alone, more power to you if you find peace in this manner. Yes, I understand it provides folks great comfort in horrid circumstances in which the emotional or physical pain is often unbearable. Furthermore, the core values of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ are indeed highly admirable practices imo; to wit, care for the sick, the poor, the handicapped, the disadvantage and disenfranchised. The world would be a much better place if folks observed those tenets.
The question is, why should I believe your claims about the actual deities themselves? If you make an extraordinary claim, I expect extraordinary evidence. As would you yourself if the tables were reversed. If I told you I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage who predicts the future and who saves the souls of dead people to live in his Mighty Spines in Paradise, you probably wouldn't just take my word on it and convert to Dragonism, eh?

If you claim there is some sort of mystical realm where dead people dwell in happiness or in pain, you're going to need to produce these folks for never-ending, lengthy, detailed interviews. If you claim that your deity can predict the future, then I'll expect detailed predictions concerning the future from you available on request for as long as I'm willing to ask. For example, ask your deity the next major airline disaster in which there will be over 100 dead, flight number, time and date, airline, and exact mechanical or other malfunction which precipitates the accident, and I'll be willing to give you further tests to see if that wasn't a fluke. After many such successful tests, I'd be willing to consider you may be onto to something. But Bo, no excuses as to why you can't perform that will even be considered. Either back up your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, or don't be shocked if I don't take your word for it.

The question, is why should I believe your extraordinary claims over those of my Hindu pizza delivery boy, or my Islamic mechanic, or anyone one else? The only standard of evidence I'll accept is evidence, not excuses for why your magic sky king exactly imitates one which does not exist in the first place. In this case, why should I believe you that fertilized human blastocytes, or victims of brain injury lacking a cerebral cortex, are under the protection of an invisible fairy who will become angry if we interfere? Why should I believe there is a supernatural structure you call a soul which is imbued into an embryo at conception and which embodies some kind of eternal life, if you can neither define, or produce, this mythical entity? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Capiche?


The problem with organizations such as the Taliban, or the Neo-Christian Right, or Shi'a Clerics in Iran, or David Koresh or Jim Jones; is they don't leave others alone. They hope to enforce their beliefs with the threat of prison, fine, or violence. They're also wide open to political manipulation by outside unscrupulous individuals in positions of power, whose religious claims oddly always seem to coincide with their personal wealth and power interests, what a coininkidink huh Bo? If for example the same followers of Christian mythology found themselves outvoted in a small town by Hindu's, who believe that animals hold the reincarnated souls of human beings, and who made eating meat a capital offense equavelent to murder, they'd be singing a different tune and go flippin ballastic, and rightly so imo.

Forcing others to observe your personal religious Fatwas is not just morally abhorrent and utterly unacceptable, it's 180 degrees against the core values of America as delineated in several key Amendments in our most cherished legal document. That's why we oppose it globally Bo; It stinks, it's sick, it's primitive, it's indefensible. It's frankly un-American and anyone who advocates it is frankly selling out those patriotic Americans who value that hard won freedom, who defended it, who uphold it in other parts of the world at great personal risk, and for which millions in this nation have sacrificed their limbs and given their very lives.
And, if you are going to shit all over the rest of us and ignore the Consititution of the United States by enforcing those practices from the barrel of a gun, at least be true to them. Jesus spoke over 1000 verse in the New Testament mandating care for the sick and weak and poor and even the criminal. Yet the Neo-Christian Right ignores that in favor of bashing gays-which I don't believe Jesus once mentioned BTW-and happily hops on the bandwagon of cutting taxes and programs to help those very people Jesus was telling them to help. It is a perversion of that faith, one most foul, and I'd have to guess Jesus wouldn't be thrilled with it, although being the Messiah I'm sure he would forgive them: I however being a mere mortal, will not.

Incidentally TruthTeller, I... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Incidentally TruthTeller, I'm a staunch Republican, or at least I was before the party was hijacked by religious fanatics. One thing to be concerned about is how badly this thing is bellyflopping across the nation. Even the evangelical Majority disagrees with Congress stepping in. And the damage done to the unity of the GOP is reaches farther than anything the democrats could have possibly hoped for. The party is splitting over this, and the Neocons, a platfoem which I doubt you can even define much less discuss with precision, are terribly worried that the pandering might be backfiring.

RE: TruthTeller's post (Mar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: TruthTeller's post (March 24, 2005 09:30 PM)

This:

PN - ...it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

begat this:

TT - Fuck all you gouls just gloating over the imminent death of a helpless human being. All of you would be the first to shove a Jew in the oven. I do hope you have to go through this same decision in your life. It would be a good object lesson.


WOW! I think I've witnessed my first imposition of Godwin by proxy... and courtesy none other than our esteemed P. Noonan. Can this be right? Impressive.

Sherard...I KNOW that Micha... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Sherard...I KNOW that Michael Schiavo's siblings believe that they know what they know. I've acknowledged that fact so many times on Wizbang as it is to be beyond tiresome to continue to read that very wan retort as if it justifies killing Terri Schiavo because Michael and his domain demand that she die.

There is evidence to suggest that Michael Schiavo was abusive (and certainly still is in mammoth proportions) Terri Schiavo. He certainly is a controlling personality and whatever was said or was not said, bringing his siblings into the mix here as "evidence" of what Terri Schiavo "said" suggests, also, that these are not acceptable sources. Meaning, they are persons quite obviously with special interests in the situation and not reliable as nonpartisan sources, if not persons who could be, also, anticipated to be manipulated by Michael Schiavo.

All things considered, Michael Schiavo and his peers do not a sound source of fact make. To a whole lot of people including myself, based upon the behavior by Michael Schiavo and not based upon random offensiveness (although he is certainly an offensive person from what I've seen and heard him express).

Michael Schiavo also has even been recorded as initially maintaining that he did not know what Terri wanted, as to her wishes if ever disabled, and it was years afterward, and only then when he was awarded substantial funds for Terri Schiavo's rehabilitation, that Michael Schiavo suddenly popped up with his current insistence, that of "knowing" that Terri Schiavo "was dead already" and "would not want to live like this" (both statements defy reason, much less combined in one message which has been Michael Schiavo's craziness, among other things, ever since).

On the other hand, there are people who are Terri Schiavo's closest friends who DID know that Terri expressed to them that (1.) she was not happy in the last year or so prior to her disability in her relationship and marriage to Michael Schiavo and that (2.) she did not find Michael Schiavo trustworthy and shared concerns and doubts and even expressed a possible divorce to one friend and (3.) several friends of Terri Schiavo supported that and that is that Terri spoke about the idea of ending someone's life based upon profound disability to be unacceptable and concerning to her within a religious and ethical perspective and that (4.) medical professionals who had contact with Terri Schiavo prior to her disability spoke out about Terri having made similar statements abot finding euthanasia and deprivation of food/water for severely disabled persons to be unacceptable...

All things considered, you have Michael Schiavo saying what he says, his (what is it, two?) siblings agreeing with him, and then you have a larger number of uninterested persons (non related but persons who had close relationships with Terri and one who still maintains that she is Terri's best friend and has been), some with professional qualifications (so they're far more reliable as source than Michael Schiavo's siblings), who all agreed that they knew that Terri Schiavo would not find it "right" to end her life under current circumstances (or anyone else's) but whose testimony has been disallowed from previous legal procedings, without much explanation (many people have shared that they felt 'silenced' or thereabouts and can't understand why their experiences with Terri would not be taken into consideration).

So, if you're focused on numbers, the numbers are in the corner on Terri's behalf that she would not want her life to be ended by current process, etc.

And, you have Michael Schiavo who first made it pretty clear to many that he didn't know what Terri would want, then he received the rehabilitatiion funds (which he did not spend on rehabilitation for Terri but for his own legal fees to deny her rehabilitation, among other things), then he decided that he did know what she wanted but that she was "dead already" and "would not want to live" and that she should "die" (she's already dead, then she wouldn't want to live, then she had to die...the babbling of a crazy person)...

It's nonsensical that no one with anything counter to Michael Schiavo's demands has been considered. He's been represented but Terri has not been. Mr. illustrious law school instructor from Harvard Law School earlier today said that he regarded the word, "murder" in relatinship to Terri Schiavo as being "emotionally charged and baseless" but what else is it that's taking place? That has been taking place? What else IS it?

Terri Schiavo is alive. If she was "dead already" she'd have putrified by now. She hasn't. She's severely disabled, yes, but she isn't dead. But Michael Schiavo insisting that she has to die (although she's "already dead") is murder. If not murder, then what is it? It's not euthanasia. It's not suicide. It's not an accident. So, what is it?

`DS~:Incidental... (Below threshold)
julie:

`DS~:

Incidentally TruthTeller, I'm a staunch Republican, or at least I was before the party was hijacked by religious fanatics.

In other words, you're a dumocrat. Go ahead, you can say it.

You can bitch about the religious fanatics hijacking the party but take a look at yourself. You seem perfectly comfortable shitting all over everyone else's religious beliefs. You're hatred is fanaticism. You are unable to stop yourself from spewing all over the place. And you dare call others fanatics? What a creep you are.

And talk about shoving beliefs down other peoples throats – do you think anyone in their right mind is going to read the shit diatribe you posted? You go on and on with this stupid anti-religious crap of yours. What a whacko! You are everything you pretend to rail against.

Truthteller sums up exactly... (Below threshold)
shark:

Truthteller sums up exactly what is bothering me so mightily about this case. The religious right and the extremism are making me sick. I'm a republican who's opinion sides more with Michael Schiavo, and I'm being told I'm gloating over the imminent death of a woman, that I endorse a culture of death, that I'm happily skipping down the road to eugenics blah blah blah. Well, fuck you! Because that's the farthest thing from my mind and heart. Some of us can side with the husband and think removing the tube is the right thing and STILL be saddened by her impending death. Too many people seem to think that the only acceptable end of this is to have Terri's "life" sustained. Well some of us think that the main thing is to get the legalities straightened out in such a way that a family matter doesn't become a matter for govt meddling. You don't give a damn about laws or the family or anything else in the advancement of your agenda. You don't give a damn about Terri Schiavo. She's just some pawn, some symbol to make a political or religious or social statement.

All you're doing is proving the point the moonbats make about "Jesusland" and the religious wing of the GOP. And pissing off GOP voters who don't want any truck with the religious right. And you better damn well remember that you need us to win elections.

carla: since Terri Schiavo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

carla: since Terri Schiavo left no record of what her wishes would be under such circumstances, there's no way to determine what her wishes are and all the rest is heresay. If it's heresay that her friends' and medical professionals' testimony said that Terri wouldn't find the current circumstances acceptable (read previous), then it's heresay that Michael Schiavo and his siblings could revise their story a few years after Terri's disability and say that she wouldn't want to live, that she was "already dead" and the like.

No one KNOWS what Terri's wishes are so society has to act on her behalf and extend basic considerations that go beyond what we do for convicted felons and animals. The least any of us could do is provide competent screening for accurate diagnosis for the woman and to maintain her as comfortable as possible among persons who love and enjoy her presence, however limited (her family). Let her pass away but by natural means and not by inducement, deprivation, by the hand of someone else.

Since she left no written directive, there is no way to determine what her wishes are, and thus, Terri Schiavo merits care from society. The day the option is to kill first based upon disability, that's the day that we no longer are a society but madmen.

Hey Shark! 1. If ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hey Shark!

1. If the shoe fits. . .

2. And I'm not religious.

3. Oh, and fuck you back double.

<a href="http://www.trdd.or... (Below threshold)
been there:

dying with dignity Please read before reaming me a new one

RE: shark's post (March 24,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: shark's post (March 24, 2005 10:27 PM)
...I'm being told I'm gloating over the imminent death of a woman, that I endorse a culture of death, that I'm happily skipping down the road to eugenics blah blah blah...

Water off a duck's back, shark. Person's advancing such hostile rhetoric, whether from a respectable columnist who uses flowery prose to disguise the disdain or the impolitely dogmatic using colorful retort, are unworthy of considered response. Rest your hands and engage with those of sincere concern.

Exactly Shark. I remember w... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Exactly Shark. I remember warning some buddies about the relrioug right and them saying "Oh we're just sucking up to them to get their votes, no one takes that crazy shit seriously".

If someone busted into Terr... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

If someone busted into Terri's room and removed the feeding tube without a court order, that would be attempted murder. However, because a court judge ordered the removal its perfectly legal. The only question about this case is what is Terri's wish. We don't know. Her husband is a dick. Her parents love her. All that matters is the morality of murdering a human being that is not on life support. We don't do that in this country. All of you that still whine about "right-wing religious fanatics" should know something about me: I'm not a Christian and I don't know if a God exists, BUT that doesn't make one less moral. Shark and ~DS~ are ignorant when it comes to morality. Morality is a universal code (possibly from God). If you are a secularist, you have situational ethics. Morality, by definition, does not change at the whims of man. However a secularist will change and that leads to moral relativism. Morality says to value the sick, the infirmed, the disabled as much as the healthy. That is why human life has an INHERENT value. That is why murdering Terri is wrong.

Well about a dozen courts h... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Well about a dozen courts have heard evidence you've not heard TT and they disagree with you about her husband.
This is truly a lose-lose scenario. No one will win here. There is plenty of room for reasonable poeple to come to different conclusions on her status, and I did state from the get go that I don't care if she remains on life support or not. I intereviewed one of the radiologists in Florida who read the original CAT Scans, an evangelical Christian BTW, and who did some extensive followup case work on Schiavo, and I accept the preponderance of evidence presented by that individual and which several courts now concur, under a variety of judges from democratic to highly conservative; that she is not going to improve, that she is unaware and unable to cognate (Incidentally, her husband took seven years to give up and accept the consensus diagnosis according to several independant sources, and although I have been unable to confirm the following, there are reports that the women he now lives with was introduced to him by the Schindlers, who at that time were counseling him to get on with his life)

But if she is dead, leaving her hooked up, or taking her off, doesn't matter to her. She's gone. You could string her up with puppeteer wires and dance her across the nation, something Delay has metaphorically already done, and she wouldn't be hurt in the slightest. So, if the parents want to take care of her body, I'd be inclined to allow them, if it were my decision. And even though I think she's not feeling anything whatsoever, something in me finds the idea of starving her or dehydrating her to death quite reppellant. I'd suggest a big syringe full of morphine for her myself, were it my call on how to stop her heart. I surely don't hold the actions of her parents against them, I can't imagine how horrifying this drawn out tragedy must be to endure. I once watched my fiancee die of leukemia, it took six months. I can't imagine 15 years. They're probably half crazy by now.

<a href="http://www.ragged-... (Below threshold)
been there:

A Defense of Genocide

Obviously, wherever Singer's ideas are accepted as the basis for policy, it becomes a vitally important thing to be seen as a person. Infants, for example, are seen as non-persons. According to Singer they may therefore be killed with far less justification than would be required if they were understood to be persons. Certain adults to whom labels such as "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), "profound mental retardation" and "dementia" are attached may also be killed with less justification, according to Singer.

~DS~Stands for dum... (Below threshold)
julie:

~DS~

Stands for dumb shit, right?

No, a dozen courts have not heard the evidence. There was one, let me repeat, ONE, trier of fact. And that was Greer. All other courts deferred to Greer's factual findings. This was not the purpose of the Congressional bill. She was never adequately represented, you ghoul.

Someone on another page got... (Below threshold)
been there:

Someone on another page got very ticked off that I mentioned eugenics. Too bad, Eugenics led to euthanasia.

The Eugenics Movement in the U.S.

Many people are unaware that Hitler's extermination policies began with the large-scale elimination of people with disabilities. Proponents of physician- assisted suicide are offended when allusions are made to this piece of disability history in the course of debate over the so-called "right to die". The fact is that Hitler stole most of his ideas on eugenics from publications originating in the USA.

In 1906, W.J. McGee, Direct... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

In 1906, W.J. McGee, Director of the St. Louis Public museum, published one of the most detailed and graphic descriptions of the ravages of extreme dehydration ever recorded. McGee's account was based on the experiences of Pablo Valencia, a forty-year-old sailor-turned-prospector, who survived almost seven days in the Arizona desert without water....

Saliva becomes thick and foul-tasting; the tongue clings irritatingly to the teeth and the roof of the mouth .... A lump seems to form in the throat ... severe pain is felt in the head and neck. The face feels full due to the shrinking of the skin. Hearing is affected, and many people begin to hallucinate... [then come] the agonies of a mouth that has ceased to generate saliva. The tongue hardens into what McGee describes as "a senseless weight, swinging on the still-soft root and striking foreignly against the teeth." Speech becomes impossible, although sufferers have been known to moan and bellow.

Next is the "blood sweats" phase, involving "a progressive mummification of the initially living body." The tongue swells to such proportions that it squeezes past the jaws. The eyelids crack and the eyeballs begin to weep tears of blood. The throat is so swollen that breathing becomes difficult, creating an incongruous yet terrifying
sense of drowning.

Finally ... there is living death, the state into which Pablo Valencia had entered when McGee discovered him on a desert trail, crawling on his hands and knees: "His lips had disappeared as if amputated, leaving low edges of blackened tissue; his teeth and gums projected like those of a skinned animal, but the flesh was black and dry as a hank of jerky; his nose was withered and shrunken to half its length, and the nostril-lining showing black; his eyes were set in a winkless stare, with surrounding skin so contracted as to expose the conjunctiva, itself as black as the gums...; his skin [had] generally turned a ghastly purplish yet ashen gray, with great livid blotches and streaks; his lower legs and feet ... were torn and scratched by contact with thorns and sharp rocks, yet even the freshest cuts were so many scratches in dry leather, without trace of blood" (Philbrick, 126-128).

Posted by: ~DS~ at March... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Posted by: ~DS~ at March 24, 2005 10:56 PM

You have got to be the must fucking dense nimrod on this site. Dig: TERRI IS NOT ON LIFE-SUPPORT JACKASS.

I they reviewed the case Ju... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

I they reviewed the case Julie, that means they reviewed the evidence...follow along now sweetie ...
Was that too fast? You with me so far? Now compare that to my statement "About a dozen courts have heard evidence you've not heard .."

Nothing in there about a case, just a statement that about a dozen courts have heard the evidence. And why the hostility? I realize Paul doens't agree with many views expressed here, but if he wanted an echo chamber my guess is he wouldn't have an open to all comers comment section.

LOL. Very impressive TT. An... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

LOL. Very impressive TT. And you're very sweet. Isn't TT doing well folks, considering?

You're talking to the wall ... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

You're talking to the wall DS. You are filled with your own self-importance. I predict you'll soon be brought down to Earth, hard.

Well I'm both a skydiver an... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Well I'm both a skydiver and a rockclimber, so I hope you're mistaken TT. Why are you getting so wigged out anyway?

RE: TruthTeller's post (Mar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: TruthTeller's post (March 24, 2005 11:15 PM)
TERRI IS NOT ON LIFE-SUPPORT...

Technically true. The appropriate terminology is (from previous thread):

The 2004 Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, CIVIL RIGHTS
Chapter 765 HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES

765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:

...

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

...

You say potato, I say potahto.
You could say support, law does say prolonging procedure.

Dumb Shit:No, dumb... (Below threshold)
julie:

Dumb Shit:

No, dumb shit, it doesn't. One of the basic rules of appellate law is that the reviewing court defers to the findings of the trier of fact and does not substitute their evaluation of the evidence or the credibility of the wits for that of the trier of fact.

And why the hostility? Besides all your antireligious vomit you insisted on sharing with us, I'm sick of people like you. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You get corrected but your too stupid and/or arrogant to even know what the correct answer is. And then you come out on the offensive.

So, tell me again you legal beagle, how many appeals have you filed? Oh, what was that? None? Zero? Nil? Zed? Yet, you're the fucking expert. Right.

RE: ~DS~'s post (March 24, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: ~DS~'s post (March 24, 2005 11:30 PM)
Well I'm both a skydiver and a rockclimber...

I trust you have a living will? I sure don't want to revisit this topic again.

Posted by: AnonymousDriv... (Below threshold)
TruthTeller:

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 24, 2005 11:32 PM

Well, that's fucking brilliant. That means you're on a Life-prolonging procedure too. Unless you never eat.

Damn those definitions gett... (Below threshold)

Damn those definitions getting in the way of ones ignorance.

I am not a lawyer, so I hav... (Below threshold)
chad:

I am not a lawyer, so I have never filed an appeal, but the Guardian-Ad-Litem report states that the Florida 2nd District Cour of Appeals conducted what amounted to a De Novo (Anew." A trial de novo is a completely new trial) review of the evidence. Also if no new evidence can be presented at appeal then how are we always hearing about new DNA evidence being presented and a case being reversed or remanded back to the trail court. Also as I went thru the documents at Terrisfight.org it appears to me that at least 2 Florida judges as well as a Federal judge went thru at least some of the evidence at various times. If you can explain that Julie I would be grateful. Based on your answer to DS I am assuming you are a lawyer.

Wow,Florida (and most of me... (Below threshold)
been there:

Wow,Florida (and most of medibiz) view hydration and feeding as medical treatment and hearsay is good enough to get you killed if you are unable to speak for yourself!

COOL!!!!!!

The only thing cooler than being a seriously disabled person in FL would be being a northern black man with a white wife getting stopped by a small town Alabama cop.

RE: Gabriel Chapman's post ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Gabriel Chapman's post (March 25, 2005 12:30 AM)
Damn those definitions getting in the way of ones ignorance.

Yeah, I hate it when that happens... and when law relies on such silly stuff. Just what are they thinkin'?

RE: been there's post (Marc... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: been there's post (March 25, 2005 12:54 AM)
Wow,Florida (and most of medibiz) view [magic phrase omitted by been there] hydration and feeding as medical treatment and hearsay is good enough to get you killed if you are unable to speak for yourself!

Again with the misstatement a mere 1'22" after being presented with the definition. Let's try again:

"... artificially provided sustenance and hydration ..."

Darn definitions are really hard to pin down.

Hey now that we have that c... (Below threshold)
been there:

Hey now that we have that cleared up all of the disabled that use feeding tubes or vents will be rushing right down there.

How about the guy that uses the Vulcan mind meld to determine that PVS patients want to die? Hero or nutjob?

Such a deep, dark, silent blue. I stared as far into her eyes as I could, hoping to sense some glimmer of understanding, some hint of awareness. The deeper I dove, the darker became the blue, until the blue became the black of some bottomless lake. "Mrs. Browning, do you want to die ... do you want to die?" I nearly shouted as I continued to peer into her pools of strikingly beautiful but incognizant blue. It felt so eerie. Her eyes were wide open and crystal clear, but instead of the warmth of lucidity, they burned with the ice of expressionlessness.

<a href="http://www.liberty... (Below threshold)
been there:

Check this kook out!

About twenty minutes after this incident, George heard the voice of "God" speak to him in a slightly stern voice:

"Be careful what you think. You are more powerful than you realize."

If you talk to God, you are... (Below threshold)
been there:

If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

-Thomas Szasz

There is treatment availabl... (Below threshold)
been there:

There is treatment available though.

Get Judge Greer to order this unfortunate to have the cure applied.

Hey wait, He knows Terri Sc... (Below threshold)
been there:

Hey wait, He knows Terri Schiavo!!!!!!!

He may talk about his spiritual journey with Schiavo then

My two cents on this is tha... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

My two cents on this is that the courts were very effective in generating thousands of pages of documents on what appears to a very poor, fundamentally inadequate investigation of Terri Shiavo's medical condition (meaning primarily her level of cognitive function). For those defending the court decision, I would only suggest you not equate the vast quantity of legal documents with the questionable quality of the medical science used to assess her state, and to remind yourself, that all else aside, the responsibility for this latter sad state of affairs rests firmly on the shoulders of Michael Shiavo.

I think it is probably fair to say that Terri is not, and never will be, operating in any remotely related to normal cognitive fashion. Most likely she is in a "semi-vegetative" state, which is to say equivalent in cognitive level to the most extreme mental retardation. I say "most likely" because Michael Shiavo has consistently refused a) the type of therapy needed to demonstrate whether she could be taught to self-feed, and b) refused to allow the battery of cognitive tests needed to assess level of retardation. Had she been in a true vegetative state, it seems to me that he would have bent over backwards to prove her condition, rather than allow himself to be demonized over the last 12 years or so.

If I am correct about her medical condition, then the likelihood is that Michael would not be allowed to have her killed, er I mean "have her feeding tube removed." I know this is speculative, but it certainly explains the facts, including Michael's odd reluctance to have the medical tests be done in a rigorous and transparent manner.

All that said, I can identify with his position. If your spouse went from a normally functioning human to a completely different person who is on the borderline between complete vegetative state and something slightly more, wouldn't you want to to "see it ended" as well? I know I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live in such a shallow meaningless existence. It kind of reminds me of the old Metallica song "One" (about a land mine victim who is kept alive with no ability to interact with the external world).

In Terri's case, had Michael been more aggressive, probably what we would have ended up with is a case study of a person in a unique state of consciousness unlike any cases previously studied. In layman's terms, she would have ended up a glorified guinea pig, which may be closer to what Michael Shiavo really fears.

Kevin Aylward writes... (Below threshold)
s9:

Kevin Aylward writes: Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.

It would be more accurate to say that Terri Schiavo's body is going to die. Her mind died years ago.

The good news is that people like you will finally have her corpse to use as a sock puppet instead of her bedridden, persistently vegetative but still living body.

Bully for fscking you, huh?

I certainly wouldn't wa... (Below threshold)
been there:

I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live in such a shallow meaningless existence

With that attitude it's already too late.

It kind of reminds me of the old Metallica song.

Whoa, a man who has studied the classic philosophers. Have you read Jim Morrison too?

-S- wrote:It's no... (Below threshold)
Brian:

-S- wrote:
It's not about what Michael Schiavo wants but what Terri Schiavo wants. Her parents and family want to care for her, so let them.

I see. So it's about what Terri wants. No, wait, it's about what her parents want!

Emotionally reasoning here...

Yes, you are. Perhaps you should drop the emotion and try reasoning with reason.

Amy said:So, tell... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Amy said:So, tell me again you legal beagle, how many appeals have you filed? Oh, what was that? None? Zero? Nil? Zed? Yet, you're the fucking expert. Right.

Good point. In Austin working for a large lobbying firm in town, I was instrumental in only perhaps a few dozen appeals, and most of those revolved around state laws and state issues before the Texas Ledge. Mostly, I merely helped draft a portion of the language for proposed legislation on behalf of our clients, rather than try cases, as I'm not a lawyer-I only worked with a team of lawyers, and few of these cases went before a court anyway. I also had the opportunity to meet George Bush a number of times, as he was then Governor of the state. He's a decent guy, quite different from his persona in the media. Sincere, charming, and surprisingly articulate. (Note that you can be all those things, and still make mistakes.)

More importantly Julie, your attitude is both bizarre and counter productive to democracy in general and this discussion specifically, not to mention atrocious in manner and tone. I've stated in simple, easy to read, language, that if it were up to me, I'd let the parents of Terry Schiavo assume her care, and that I don't necessarily support removing the feeding tube as I don't think it can hurt her or help her at this point-not to mention I feel it's a bit barbaric to let her die of thirst, even if she can't feel anything. Yet, you either missed all that in your misplaced, immature, zeal to castigate everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with every element in your increasingly disjointed rants, or you don't care about facts written plainly before you on this Blog.

This type of knee-jerk response and people such as yourself are precisely why Americans are growing disgusted with Neo-Christian Extremists, and terrified that their legal and political future could be in the hands of someone so incompetent and dishonest as yourself. You're condescending, intolerant, brattish, uninformed, and ignorant as all get out, while professing a false sense of superiority which you apparently cannot back up and compensate for by attacking others. You're un-American and un-Christian in that respect. It's a terrible witness for any religion or political ideology, and I'd be willing to bet there are conservative Christians reading this thread who would agree with you on many issues, who wish you and those like you would shut the hell up and stop embarrassing them with your childish antics. Your incoherent responses are so inane it's tempting to conclude that you're a liberal douche trying to make conservatives look bad by caricature.

This is a blog hon, not a court. It's a place to discuss differences and similarities of opinion on matters both complex and straight forward, as well as the undelrying ratinal for those views. You seemed to have confused it with a Holy Crusade or a highly censored venue where you have some kind of final say so over what others think and state. You have neither.

In resposne to the more san... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

In resposne to the more sane and polite commentators who are uneasy with current developments within the GOP: I really don't see a solution, sad to say. It's a deal with the devil. We/they have merged almost seamlessly with a group of folks who are motivated by a political ideology based on a violent form of neo-Christianity, eerily similar to the fundamentalist Islamic ideology known as Wahhibism. I had to leave the party, as a scientist, a pragmatist, and a moral person, I just couldn't rationalize it any longer. Not to mention I don't want to be associated with them when it crashes and burns, as I feel is highly likely at some point.

The ramifications of lawmakers pandering to extremist fanatics are chilling. In Florida for example, the State Ledge is trying to enact legislation that would make it possible for College students to sue their professors over course material, if it does not jive with the student's personal ideological views. For example, a creationist student could sue a biology prof for teaching evolutionary biology, in a class titled 'evolutionary biology". Or a Neo-nazi could sue a history professor for teaching only 'one side' of the Holocaust "Hypothesis" and blaming it on Nazi Germany! I mean holy smokes batman, how could they teach anything under those circumstances?

It's sad to watch unfold, because most of the Christians I know personally, including those who would call themselves members of the religoius right, are wonderful folks who truly care deeply about this nation and about Christian values. Here on the Space Coast for example, the local Hospice is run almost entirely by evangelicals who provide badly needed comfort and care in the final days for terminally ill pateints.
I guess they don't realize how horrifying these developments in politics are for the rest of us who support freedom and liberty for all. And they apprently have no historical perspective on the usual end result of such phenomena. But it's extraordinarily difficult to get through to people when their initial premise os that facts don't matter, and that reality-including empirical data- is malleable as a function of one's 'world view'.

It's tempting not to hold them responsible. They're being led by fanatical but extremely persuasive nutjobs, such as Rev Sun Myung Moon or Pat Buchanan, kept whipped up into a righteous frenzy so as to be incapable of excercising rational judgement and making lucid decisions, they flock like lemmings to support whatever position their Neocons masters put before them- regardless of how antithetical it is to core theistic principles and how threatening it is to our basic American liberties, they lack critical analytical skills; IOW they're easily conned. As you can see from this thread and many others like it all over the blogosphere, they happily attack and smear anyone who dares to question their reasoning with vile, vulgar attacks, and a lot of them don't seem to give a flying fuck about core freedoms, fiscal discipline, big government intrusiveness, or anything else remotely conservative in the traditional sense.
The result is a political trainwreck for everyone. Frankly, it reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the political tactics used by Hitler as he ascended in rank during the 1930s. But if they're not responsible enough to learn about the issues and use factual data to make rational decisions which affect us all, if they have no respect for the Constitutional Rights of everyone except for themselves (Which kind of defeats the purpose of the Constitution), and if they sell out the very principles of liberty, due process, and religoius freedom they claim to admire, what can one do but cut them loose politically? How else will politicians get the message?

So, I see no other solution, outside of speaking with my ballot and abandoning the GOP, at least until such time as they kick the violent, extremist, immoral, elements to the curb( I mean good grief, the current incarnation of Law at the highest level gives the fucking President and his Cabinet explicit permission to ignore every rule of conduct enacted by the Congress of the Courts, and kidnap people from any nation, send them secretly off to Syria or other third world shitholes to be tortured to death with no charges, trial, or even notification of the family as to what has become of them, and this power will be present after Bush has left office. Can you imagine the potential for abuse or mistakes that holds? [shudder]).

It may be that nothing can stop the infection of the body politic and America itself with the anti-American forces of right wing religious fanatacism, expertly managed by a few unscrupulous individuals cleverly using it to feather their own nest at the expense of us all. But I don't have to be part of it. And I won't be.

s9 this "The good news is t... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

s9 this "The good news is that people like you will finally have her corpse to use as a sock puppet instead of her bedridden, persistently vegetative but still living body.

Bully for fscking you, huh?"

Was pretty tactless, for one thing there isn't any thing "good" about this case, no matter what side you fall on, and frankly anyone who thinks there is something good, needs to rethink their opinion.

Thanks David B.<br... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Thanks David B.


And thanks to Kevin, Paul and Jay for finally posting something different today; it was quite refreshing.

I will enjoy my peace today - thanks.

Cindy

~DS~: I'm an atheist and a ... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

~DS~: I'm an atheist and a registered democrat who crosses party lines when voting. So, there goes your bs theory.

allium: Good. I'm glad you like it because she posts it at least 3 times a day no matter what the topic.

Posted by: julie at March 24, 2005 04:43 PM
______________________________________

NO I DON'T BITCH. I COME HERE, READ THE POST, NOT THE COMMENTS, THEN COMMENT IF NEED BE. I MAY BE THE LONGEST CINDY HERE BUT I'M NOT THE ONLY CINDY. GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW THE HELL SMART YOU ARE, YOU ASS. I'm going to take DavidB and Allium's advice and have a peaceful day. WHY DO YOU TROLL HERE?? Bloody hell, wish you'd go elsewhere and if you put me down again, imagine my arm coming out of your computer to give you the hardest slap I know you deserve.

Angel I have no idea what y... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Angel I have no idea what you're talking about.

My last wrod. I would be OK with the Schindlers taking over the care of Schiavo. But the Courts have heard evidence from the principles, reviewed medical diagnosis, and weighed the matter as carefully as they possibly can (Case history is enclosed below). Appeals courts have examined the case from a State and Federal Constitutional basis. State and federal legislative bodies have examined it. The consensus court decisions have been that Terry Schiavo is not going to improve, that the case was properly pursued, that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and that she would not have wished to be kept alive under these circumstances. (I can provide you a Florida radiologist who works with a neurologist, both of whom actually examined Schiavo in person at great length, and both of whom are not any kind of raving liberal whatsoever, flatly stating that Schiavo's EEG has been flat for fifteen years and her cerebrum is full of fluid, which means even the tiny portions of cerebral cortex which aren't cerebro-spinal fluid and do have a few intact neurons aren't firing at all). This has been shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. You may not like it, but those are the facts on record. It's tragic, it's understandably unbearable to those who love her, especially given that she can smile and grimace and moan which we humans respond to emotionally. I sincerely wish this was not the case and there was hope for her. No one is 'happy' this poor lady is in this kind of shape; good Lord what the hell is wrong with someone that they would stoop to implying otherwise?
That is what the courts and doctors have found. IOW, the courts, the docs, the radiologists, and the majority of the public, have found that you and your fundie pals are dead wrong and don't have a shred of a leg to stand on medically or legally (And the fundie neurologist who is claiming otherwise without even having examined the woman is an embaressment to docs nationwide) , that rumors to the effect that her husband abused her or brought this on in some way are utterly unfounded, and that you should quite bluntly fucking butt out: You're not wanted or welcome. They've decided you, or Jeb, or Bush, or Delay, have no more right to go charging into this matter, and taking the law in your own hands, than Osama bin Laden does. End of story.

As sad as this case is for everyone involved, it raises a host of interesting and dicey issues regarding quaility of life, euthinasia, assisted suicide, and family rights. And I feel those matters should be discussed. Should we keep people alive to the last possible second regardless of their own wishes or those nearest them? Should we force the insurance companies or medicare to pay, or should we foreclose on their relatives assets to cover the bill, or lay it on the taxpayers, locally, state wide, or federally? Would it be Consitutional to do any or all of that? Is it Consitutional to make states or local municpalities pay for Federal mandates, or vice versa? When the patient is at least partially to blame for their own predictament, do the same rules apply; if for example their condition was the result of a crack overdose, driving drunk, or comitting a crime? Who decides these matters, courts, congress, the spouse, the parents, the legal guardian, the children, the governor, the President? Would it afect the process, or should it, if Schiavo was 90 years old, or age six?
These are all legitimate issues that everyone has pretty much shied away from over the years and by default left to the doctors and the families of the victims. And they need to be discussed, because unlike extraordinary rendition, or evolution vs creationism, this issue will likely affect you or someone you know during your life, and probably more than once.

But the freaky thing here is that a fringe group of fanatics is claiming that their subjective faith in a supernatural deity, and their unquestionable, narrow, intepretation of what that Deity wishes in this case, which cannot be confirmed in anyway of course we're all just supposed to take their word for it, trumps science, medicine, marriage, the decrees of any other other religious group who doesn't buy their claims, The Law, and the vast majority of public opinion. And that the Congress, or the Governor, or political groups, can simply ignore those laws they don't like and unilaterally act as they please, with no accountability to the courts, police, voters, or public. That they are Divinely authorized by God-eh, as intepreteted by one and only one religious persuasion (Although I'm sure the Iranian Clerics and the Sunni Wahhibists would agree comepletely here), to go storming into a hospital room and kidnap a body at gunpoint in flagrant violation of legally decided courses of action. And in this case concerning the aforementioned law, the public is squarely behind the court and medical decisions in massive majorities, with only a small fringe element insisting the law be broken by elected officials, who are sworn to act in the interests of the plurality which elected them. The implications for our culture if this behavior were widely accepted as the norm are, in a word, staggering. The precedent it could set is ghastly.

And in the event that some of you are still not convinced this matter has been well heard, this is the case history, it's not exactly 'sparse':

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry
February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain
May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy
July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon
July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy
May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together
January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube
February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would choose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would choose to have the tube removed)
March 2000… Judge Greer denies petition for more swallowing tests, finds it uncontested Terri cannot swallow sufficiently to live
April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility
January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes
April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed
April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the first time
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes
April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada
April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored
July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada [READ]
(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient
October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor
March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma
November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state
November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan
June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment
August 22, 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
August 30, 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional
September 17, 2003… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to provide additional therapy, finding it an effort to retry the issues that were previously tried
October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case
October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the second time
October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube
October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request
October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored
October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law
November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee
November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself
December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor
December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified
April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee
May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds
June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court
July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech
September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional
October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)
December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional
December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment
January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles
January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case
February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment (motion raising various due process challenges)
February 23, 2005… Florida's Department of Children and Families asks to intervene and for 60-day stay to permit investigation of alleged abuse
February 23, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting new tests to determine Terri's status
February 25, 2005… Judge Greer rules motions appear endless, he will grant no further stays; sets March 18 date for removal of feeding tube
February 28, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting that Terri be fed orally
March 2, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, arguing factual error in original judgment
March 8, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to feed Terri orally
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion requesting new tests
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on factual error)
March 10, 2005… Judge Greer denies Department of Children and Families request to intervene and for stay, finds agency is free to investigate
March 16, 2005… Second District affirms Judge Greer's denial of Schindlers' motion raising various due process challenges, emphasizes law has been followed in this case
March 18, 2005… Schindlers file new federal action arguing due process violations in original trial; case assigned to Judge Moody
March 18, 2005… Judge Moody denies new federal claim, citing lack of jurisdiction
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee issues subpoenas for Michael, Terri, and Terri's caregivers to appear at hearing to be held at the hospice where Terri has stayed
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee files motion to intervene and modify order requiring the removal of Terri's feeding tube
March 18, 2005… Judge Greer denies congressional committee motion, ruling no grounds exist for intervention
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee requests Florida Supreme Court and Second District stay the feeding tube's removal
March 18, 2005… Terri's feeding tube removed for the third time
March 18, 2005… Florida Supreme Court denies congressional committee request, citing lack of jurisdiction
March 18, 2005… Second District denies congressional committee request as without merit
March 21, 2005… Congress enacts Terri's Law II, authorizing Terri's parents to seek federal court review of whether Terri's federal rights have been protected
March 21, 2005… Schindlers file new action in federal court based on new law, claiming Terri's federal rights have been violated
March 22, 2005… Judge Whittemore denies Schindlers' request to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted, finding no substantial likelihood the Schindlers will succeed with their claims [READ]
March 23, 2005… In a 2-1 decision, Eleventh Circuit affirms Judge Whittemore's decision not to restore Terri's feeding tube

Wow DS. I disagree with a ... (Below threshold)
chad:

Wow DS. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote about neo-christianity etc., but your summary of the case was excellent. The bad thing is this is one of those issues that has moved beyond the ability for rational discussion, so I think you wasted a lot of time. The people that are inclined to agree with you have already agreed, those who are not won't. It will however be interesting to see how long it takes before you are attacked for posting it.

Well I appreciate that obse... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Well I appreciate that observation Chad. Another interesting factoid is that every Judge appointed by Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2, sided with Michael Schiavo, except in the case of the rehearing in which the 10-2 decisionw as not affixed by Justice name, we can't be sure. And the same Florida Supreme Court which was being widely hailed as The Wise Sages intepreting Conlaw by the religious right in 2000, ares now being smeared across the wingnut blogosphere as 'activist judges'. I fear you're right about the depressing attitude of the fanatics. We have to take this party back from them before they drive it, and our principles, over a goddamn cliff.

~DS~,The bulk of p... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

~DS~,

The bulk of public opinion, along with most judicial interpretation of law, is ensconced in a contradictory position to that of President Bush and Governor Bush, the top executives in their respective domains. You will note how both Bushes have backed off from their initial advocacy though to quantify it exactly is tough - I guess it's more of an observation. GWB urged Congress to act and then sat back and hoped. Legal, but politically risky. JB has done essetially the same thing at the state level.

However, I think they noticed the political maelstrom (who could miss it!) and don't want to go in with both feet. Some have suggested that they could use a stronger approach to force this issue to a greater degree. Neither seem willing so their political calculus (and perhaps ethical) do have limitations. They are saavy politicians to be sure. One wonders, however, if they have done some irreparable harm to the Republican party? If this had happened in the summer of '04, I'd wager that the Democrats would have made serious inroads into the body politick.

Missing from DS's timeline ... (Below threshold)

Missing from DS's timeline is the pivotal event in the pro-Michael side's version of the case: Terri's alleged comment that she wouldn't want to be kept alive. When did that happen?

Hard to imagine that an eve... (Below threshold)

Hard to imagine that an event found by the primary judge in the case to be "clear and convincing evidence," could be so minor as to be irrelevant to DS's summary...

Uhhh ... Yeah, that silly a... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Uhhh ... Yeah, that silly activist Judge Greer, an appointee of the Bush's/Reagan and a life long Christian Conservative, just went and made that part all up, you know, just for kicks and to help out the leftist agendists, when he found for Michael Schiavo, McGhee. And all the appeals rehearing which examined the case, all of whom were also appointed by conservatives, just, you know for kicks, went along with it, cuz they're all in on the UN/Commie World Wide Liberal Plot to stifle all that is good and moral ...

"Jury: A panel of twelve ci... (Below threshold)

"Jury: A panel of twelve citizens charged with deciding who has the better lawyer."

If I am not mistaken it was... (Below threshold)
chad:

If I am not mistaken it was in Feb. 2000, that Judge Greer made those findings (regarding Terri's wishes), that is in DS's timeline.

Karl- I am not sure what your comment has to do with this thread, since to my knowledge this has never been in front of a jury. Although it is a generally funny comment.

Finally I dont think Greer is a Reagan / Bush appointee since he is a state not federal judge, and I believe Florida elects there district court judges.

Here's a poser:<a ... (Below threshold)

Here's a poser:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-brain-damaged-woman-arrest,0,4268134,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Aside from this man's tactical lapse (bringing a box cutter to a gun store), was he morally right or wrong, and why?

You're correct Chad and TY ... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

You're correct Chad and TY for the catch to my sloppy work. Greer was first elected circuit judge in '92 after serving two stints as county commisioner. He's known among his peers not just as being a member of the religous right, they jokingly say he is the religious right. Until just recently he was a member in good standing with the Florida GOP and Christian Coalition. Now he's being smeared quite handily and it's hard to say what will become of him. He was very unfortunate to have this case land on his watch. Judges in the Circuit can be appointed by the governor under some circumstances as best I can tell, but Greer was elected as most judges here (I live in Fla) are. My apologies.

RE: Karl Lembke's postt (Ma... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Karl Lembke's postt (March 25, 2005 11:42 AM)
"Jury: A panel of twelve citizens charged with deciding who has the better lawyer."

A truism of sorts but not applicable here as noted by chad. The trial of contention did not have a jury.

---------------------------------------

For those interested in another, more comprehensive and dynamically updated timeline (from a university ethics department), please review:

KEY EVENTS IN THE CASE OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO
Kathy Cerminara, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center
Kenneth Goodman, University of Miami Ethics Programs
With thanks to Steven Haidar, Dartmouth College
(Please respect their copyright policy.)

The most pertinent document is the original trial with facts; so if you read anything, read the original judgement:

February 11, 2000
Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and therefore he orders it removed, which, according to doctors, will cause her death in approximately 7 to 14 days.

Trial Court Ruling
(Link to *.pdf)


In fact the history of February 25, 1990 through February 11, 2000 is the most enlightening as far as setting the stage for all of these debates and misconceptions. Pay close attention to detail when reviewing and it (or the entire timeline) will allow one to reach a much more conclusive determination to what happened and why... and why the appellate courts have decided the way they have.

My personal opinion is he w... (Below threshold)
chad:

My personal opinion is he was morally wrong. First there is the question of trying to impose himself into the situation, and "rescuing" a person with a very minimal quality of life (Yes, I know that is a value judgement that has to be made by each person, but for this argument I am using my values). Then there is the question of violating the order imposed by the judge. I know the theroy that an unjust law does not have to be obeyed, bust since the law (the Florida Right to Die laws) this judgement was based was enacted with the goal of relieving unnecessary suffering is it really unjust? That comes down to another value judgement and since I am not a life at all cost advocate I am again using my values and saying that the law is just. Then there is the theft, outright prohibited in the 10 commandments, and what I am assuming was the threatening of another with the boxcutter (I may be mistaken on that) all in all I don't think he has much moral ground to stand on. I am sure others will disagree with me.

Now here is my question - If you are a Christian don't you accept that the body is just the vessel for the soul's time on Earth? If that is the case isn't keeping Terri alive in this state the greater evil since it prevents her soul from ascending to Heaven. (I am assuming she hadn't commited some mortal sin before her accident)?

I'd say if she has a soul, ... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

I'd say if she has a soul, it certainly couldn't be held against her for having her tube removed, and assuming her bulemia wasn't an issue, yes, freeing her soul would be the more humane act. I'm not a theist though, so I don't have a stake in that issue.

What also seems to be lacking in the Internet discussions of this case here and elsehwere is the legal reality: People can and do say all kinds of things on air and in the media, but when under oath their stories often bear little resemblence to those comments. There is no risk of perjury in lying or exaggerating on blogs or to the press. You can basically say pretty much anything out here in the media world you want, with little legal risk outside of libel, and libel is a notoriously difficult charge to prove. I can go on live TV right now, claim I was visiting a friend at the same hospital as Terry Schiavo, and claim I stopped in her room by accident and had a lengthy conversation with her about existential philosophy and string theory in Chinese, swear on a Bible on camera I was telling the God's honest truth, and blog it, be interviewed on 20/20, or appear on the cover of Time Magazine, all without fear of legal repercussions whatsoever. And I could then appear a week later, put my hand on the bible, and say I made the whole thing up. If I do that in court however, I could find myself in contemp for perjury, sporting a felony record, and meeting my new roomate named BubbaBob in Prison. Thus people are less likely to lie under oath unless they feel they have no other option. That's one of the reasons that court findings beat the living shit out of Internet anecdotes and are considered much more reliable and credible. What we see here and elsewhere are folks putting anecdotal rumor on the same rung in the ladder of credibility as court testimony, and that's simply absurd.

Just Me wrote: ..... (Below threshold)
s9:

Just Me wrote: ...for one thing there isn't any thing "good" about this case, no matter what side you fall on, and frankly anyone who thinks there is something good, needs to rethink their opinion.

I agree! Of course, the "good news" I was referencing was not an attribute of the Terri Schiavo case itself, but rather an attribute of the political phenomenon surrounding it.

The "good news" is that it will soon be able to proceed without anyone using a woman's still-living body as a sock puppet to advance their political agenda. The "information," however, is that her corpse will remain useful for at least a couple weeks after the body dies.

Furthermore, I'm ever so sorry you didn't like the blunt tone I used to point out that this whole affair has been a macabre clown show. But I figure that when some folks are seriously calling for Governor Jeb Bush to send in the National Guard to keep their sock puppet from expiring, the clown show is long past the point where it should have ended.

That's one of the things th... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

That's one of the things that makes Delay and others so deplorable. The Schindlers are Schiavo's parents, of course they're giong to latch onto any hope, no matter how remote, they can find. Man I feel so bad for them. Offering them that hope when in fact it is not there, claiming that she 'talks and laughs and eats food' when in fact she does nothing but let out bloodcurdling moans like a halloween banshee(I have an MP3 file of it, it's real bad) , which anyone who has ever worked with head injuries recognizes as reflexive, is fucking sick. It would be pretty nasty if it was just an act of esperation or an honest mistake. That the Schindlers are getting dragged over the coals in what can only be some kind of surreal roller coaster of extreme emotion ... so that Tom Delay can try and score some brownie points with the religious fanatics, points which at this time don't seem to be materializing, is utterly obscene. I don't generally throw around terms like evil casually. But that motherfucker is as evil as they come in DC. I'm tempted to move to Sugarland, Tx., just to vote against the sick fuck.

That's life.Of the... (Below threshold)
Paul:

That's life.

Of the many ironies generated by the case of Terri Schiavo - the comatose woman whose fate has divided America - two currently stand out. The first is that what originally seemed an overwhelmng victory for conservatives - with a Republican congress and president joining in an unprecedented federal intervention in the Florida "right-to-die" case - has now exposed a deep conflict in conservatism itself. At issue is a dilemma for many of George Bush's strongest supporters. Are they primarily social conservatives - in which case they back the federal government's move to keep Mrs Schiavo alive at all costs? Or are they primarily constitutional or "federalist" conservatives - in which case they dislike Washington imposing itself over the decision of state courts, a precedent that conservatives would bitterly resist if it was pursued by a Democratic congress or by a liberal president?
The second is that Ms Schiavo's best chance of returning to a cognitive state lies with stem-cell research. Although stem-cell therapy is still in its infancy, a likely future application is expected to be the replacement of damaged brain cells, such as those that have reduced Ms Schiavo to a vegetative state for the past 15 years. In a few years, it is possible that Ms Schiavo may be curable. But for this to happen, moral conservatives, including Mr Bush, would have to revise their view that stem cells not only have a right to life, but one that outweighs the right to a cognitive life of sufferers from brain conditions such as hers. Having demonstrated how much value he attaches to Ms Schiavo's life - allowing himself to be wakened in the early hours to sign the federal intervention into law - Mr Bush may one day have to decide whose hopes for life are of higher value: a woman who was in the prime of her life when she was struck down by brain damage, or a group of cells forming part of an embryo of four or five day's existence.
When this case took off, conservatives may have treated Ms Schiavo's case as a black-and-white moral issue. But they will have to wrestle with the complex consequences for many years to come.

well, this thread got quiet... (Below threshold)
chad:

well, this thread got quiet suddenly. What happened did she pass away?

So, I could only get throug... (Below threshold)
psquared:

So, I could only get through about 90% of the posts in this thread because some of it was really ridiculous. Thus, I apologize if I'm saying something already stated.

It seems to me that the Schindlers have had the executive branch of Florida's gov't on their side since at least 2003 (and maybe longer since I'm sure Jeb didn't just wake up one morning and decide he had nothing better to do than save Terri's life). They also enjoyed the support of the Florida legislature until the judicial branch told them that they had no business getting involved.

Now they have the support of every evangelical organization AND the executive branch and more than half the legislative branch of the federal government.

Michael Shiavo has a lawyer.

Oh, OK. Now I see how the case has been stacked against the Schindlers. What was I thinking?

I feel very much for Terri ... (Below threshold)
Charles Adams Sr.:

I feel very much for Terri s parents, but they must let her go. It is a selfish thing to want to keep her from an eternity of non-suffering. As a parent I would not want my child there to keep me company, knowing that they would be in G-ds hands would be more comforting. Aside from that, all of you out there try to imagine these numbers. 400,000 Americans, on American soil, each year, die from tobacco related illness. What do our Congress and Senators do about this besides line their own pockets with the largese the lobbiests pay out and the companies themselves pay to operate an addictive drug assembly line. Are people allowed drugs NO. Are they allowed cigarettes? YES. You or a loved one will be affected by the death caused by tobacco and it is more of a moral issue than the Schaivo case. They numbers are staggering, 400k a YEAR! Let me know that you are truly moral Americans not swayed by the lawyers today who look the other way as we are killed by this greedy society supposedly relying on the Bible for guidance. E mail me and let me know that you understand the real issues are ones that the current administration is looking for votes in 2008, to make you look the other way while we continue the killing in Iraq, Pakistan, and genocide (yes inhumane genocide) right here at home. Diversionary tactics for the average American to be concerned with and not real issues affecting our childrens and grandchildrens futures. thank you for providing this forum so some people may understand.

s9 the term "sock puppet" i... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

s9 the term "sock puppet" is so dehumanizing it is rediculous. Even if you are all for pulling the tube, the woman is still a human being, and at the very least deserves to be treated as such. She isn't a "sock puppet" her brain isn't "mush" and she isn't some in animate object. She has at least some family that loves her, and they just want to take care of her.

Denying her humanity is morally repulsive.

"Now here is my question - If you are a Christian don't you accept that the body is just the vessel for the soul's time on Earth? If that is the case isn't keeping Terri alive in this state the greater evil since it prevents her soul from ascending to Heaven. (I am assuming she hadn't commited some mortal sin before her accident)? "

Um, no. Honestly, I figure the best move is to let God work this one out, rather than the government assuming the role of helping God along.

Brian: unfortunately, you ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Brian: unfortunately, you miss entirely the worth and value of what "emotional reasoning" is. And, for those of us who have capacity to realize when and how to apply it and when not to.

A keen indication in my experience of a fool is someone who dismisses human emotion, and emotional reasoning.

The Instructor from Harvard Law with Rocks where White Matter ought to be who dismisses the application of the word, "murder" as being -- oh, the horror! -- "emotionally charged" rhetoric, also conveniently avoided addressing what Terri Schiavo's death under these circumstances is. Instead, he conveninetly stepped all around that in his ever-so-denigrating-about-life-while-praising-remote-and-abstract-rationalizations-under-guise-of-a-text-as-tool mentality that makes me now better understand just what harms and why have befallen many who are produced into our society by persons such as himself.

Emotion and emotional reasoning is not a bad thing, and actually contributes a great deal to creativity. And to just about every aspect of human civilization. But, I suppose we could all just reduce to the status of cats and chase mice around and...oh, wait, that'd be illustrating excitement, aggression, hunger, aggravation, enthusiasm, desperation (the mice), fear, anxiety...

Emotion and emotional reasoning is a key aspect to survival. No one's yet been able to explain away not applying the word, "murder" to Terri Schiavo. Interesting that Michael Schiavo's "rights as spouse" can be so ardently protected and advanced and defended by such an emotional base masquereding as "law."

chad: no, but it's Good F... (Below threshold)
-S-:

chad: no, but it's Good Friday.

But, Brian, you missed the ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, Brian, you missed the point of my comments and completely. Instead, you responded emotionally.

I puzzle as to comments such as yours, however, that accomplish nothing but sorta place darkness and depression and the down side of converssation out there instead. I am thinking that you are suffering depression, yes?

Just Me writes: S... (Below threshold)
s9:

Just Me writes: She isn't a "sock puppet"...

Then folks here should stop treating her body like a sock puppet.

Just Me writes: ...her brain isn't "mush"...

Dude. Her cerebrum was destroyed. There is no place in her brain where consciousness can reside. There is no chance of her brain ever recovering any of her memory or other personality traits. The person who was Terri Schiavo does not exist anymore.

Just Me writes: ...and she isn't some inanimate object.

Duh.

Just Me writes: Denying her humanity is morally repulsive.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm finally morally repulsed enough to comment about folks treating her body like a sock puppet.

Good point. <p... (Below threshold)
julie:

Good point.

Dumb Shit: You should have stopped here. Do you even read the crap you spew? Hate Christians Hate religion, hate Neocons Hate Hate Hate. You pretend to rail against fanaticism when you are a fanatic. And you call others bizarre? Lol!

And these long antireligious diatribes of yours: No one reads that crap. It comes across as crazy. Crazy and boring. You're a real whacko. Ever other word you type has some sort of religious connotation. Get therapy.

Thanks David B. And than... (Below threshold)
julie:

Thanks David B. And thanks to Kevin, Paul and Jay for finally posting something different today; it was quite refreshing.

I will enjoy my peace today - thanks.

Cindy

No you won't. What makes you think there won't be subsequent posts on Schiavo? In fact, I think I see one now! lol!

NO I DON'T BITCH. I COME... (Below threshold)
julie:

NO I DON'T BITCH. I COME HERE, READ THE POST, NOT THE COMMENTS, THEN COMMENT IF NEED BE. I MAY BE THE LONGEST CINDY HERE BUT I'M NOT THE ONLY CINDY. GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW THE HELL SMART YOU ARE, YOU ASS.

What's a day without at least one nonsensical post by cindy. lol!

I'm going to take DavidB and Allium's advice and have a peaceful day. WHY DO YOU TROLL HERE?? Bloody hell, wish you'd go elsewhere and if you put me down again, imagine my arm coming out of your computer to give you the hardest slap I know you deserve.

If you don't like reading what I post, you can always read and post elsewhere. Oh wait, you already do. Here's some of your fan mail:

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"

Posted by: notcindy at March 21, 2005 09:39 AM

CHAD'S BEEN HAD!<i... (Below threshold)
julie:

CHAD'S BEEN HAD!

Wow DS. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote about neo-christianity etc., but your summary of the case was excellent. The bad thing is this is one of those issues that has moved beyond the ability for rational discussion, so I think you wasted a lot of time. The people that are inclined to agree with you have already agreed, those who are not won't. It will however be interesting to see how long it takes before you are attacked for posting it.

Well I appreciate that observation Chad.

I guess this falls under the category of attacking him for posting it. It is not his summary. He cut and pasted it from someone else's website. Then he has the nerve to take credit for it! Why does his lack of ethics not surprise me?

There is no risk of perj... (Below threshold)
julie:

There is no risk of perjury in lying or exaggerating on blogs or to the press. You can basically say pretty much anything out here in the media world you want, with little legal risk outside of libel, and libel is a notoriously difficult charge to prove.

How about theft of intellectual property? Is it okay to post other people's work as your own and take credit for it?????

SMaybe because it ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

S

Maybe because it is such a simple definition to find, and because they just don't want to hear your rationalization of a different definition, people have not responded.

But here ya go . . .

Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Notice the use of the word unlawful.

Since this decision was authorized by the court, a court of law, it is not unlawful. Therefore it does not take a large leap of logic to make the correct determination that a murder is not happening.

Another interesting point, which has been conveniently left out here, is that Michael's standing in this issue is not one of spouse, but guardian. A decision that the Schindler's had no problem with all those years ago when it was decided. It has been carefully avoided by those who want to denigrate him, "What kind of husband is he?" "What right does he have, he is only the husband?"

Your responses are always so interesting for a number of reasons, but the most recent are a hoot.

In one you appear to champion the use of emotion and then not more then 3 or 4 minutes later you criticize someone for using emotion in a response.

You are either an obvious hypocrite or someone who needs some kind of help.

In reference to your thinking someone may be suffering from depression, you, of all people, may want to look inward prior to thinking someone else needs professional help.

I can hardly wait for your clear, thoughtful, reply.

Paul said:"Of t... (Below threshold)

Paul said:

"Of the many ironies generated by the case ... two currently stand out. The first is that what originally seemed an overwhelmng victory for conservatives - ... has now exposed a deep conflict in conservatism itself. At issue is a dilemma for many of George Bush's strongest supporters. Are they primarily social conservatives - in which case they back the federal government's move to keep Mrs Schiavo alive at all costs? Or are they primarily constitutional or "federalist" conservatives - in which case they dislike Washington imposing itself over the decision of state courts, a precedent that conservatives would bitterly resist if it was pursued by a Democratic congress or by a liberal president?"

An excellent point (and may I say how deeply appreciative I am to see the tone of the discourse having taken a salutory turn) -- This point has been screaming off the comments section for weeks, and I troubles me to no end.

It has also troubled me (probably because I am a lawyer) that some social conservatives in these comments have expressed such suspicion (if not contempt) for the Rule of Law, and its (multiple, consistent) applications in this instance.

I learned a moment ago from DS's comment that Judge Greer is "known among his peers not just as being a member of the religous right, they jokingly say he is the religious right. Until just recently he was a member in good standing with the Florida GOP and Christian Coalition."

Not having had time to look into his background this week, I am now more stunned that ever by the bitter invective spewed his way by those so outraged by his actions. Everything I have been able to read (from unbiased sources, I tried) about the legal issues and process that has taken place here compels a rational conclusion that Judge Greer applied to law to the facts and made a difficult ruling; and that his handling of the case has been supported every step of the way by the dozens of other judges that have had a hand in the case. And yet some conclude that the entire judicial system has run amok -- JUDICIAL TYRRANY!! -- and we need to change the Constitution to TAKEN BACK OUR COUNTRY!!

Of course, there will be lawyers responding who will tell me, as Randall Terry's lawyer was telling Sean Hannity last night on the radio, that I am wrong, that Judge Greer abused his position, etc. That's the problem with lawyers. If you have one, you have peace. If you have two, you have a lawsuit.

This is neither healthy nor, in my view, rational.

There will be a (hopefully healthy) debate, anew, on the legal issue of "substituted judgment," and that is a good thing. It should take place in legislatures across the country, and if social conservatives are successful in some places, those are meaningful victories.

But Paul is right -- conservatives are going to have to figure out how to live with one another in a way they haven't had to worry about. And the Republican Party will have a tiger by the tail if it does not devise a way to avoid the persistent cross-pressuring of (a huge part of) its base.

julie ranted . . .<b... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

julie ranted . . .

Dumb Shit: You should have stopped here. Do you even read the crap you spew? Hate Christians Hate religion, hate Neocons Hate Hate Hate. You pretend to rail against fanaticism when you are a fanatic. And you call others bizarre? Lol!


And these long antireligious diatribes of yours: No one reads that crap. It comes across as crazy. Crazy and boring. You're a real whacko. Ever other word you type has some sort of religious connotation. Get therapy.

ROTFLMAO

It sort of obvious you read it, so who is the wacko now? Check the mirror in case you don't know . . .

I love the careful well thought out responses, it is very entertaining.

(Well, let me amend my stat... (Below threshold)

(Well, let me amend my statement about the quality of the discourse...I spoke too soon)

That's a cogent post Wavema... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

That's a cogent post Wavemaker. But how does one live with extremist elements of the religious right if they basically cannot get along with anyone else? Note Julie's attacks against me for simply presenting the case history. I've said repeatedly I'd would have let the Schindlers assume care of Schiavo were it up to me, and that starving her to death troubles me even if I agree the court decision must be observed. She doesn't care that those are the facts, she simply seeks to discredit anyone who disagree with her religious fundamentalist view, and she's fairly mild compared to some I encounter. In this case she's zeroed in on me because I was aducious enough to question the rational of the religous right.

You've noted their MO, attack, smear, distort, lie, dripping vitriol, etc, and pass it on. It doesn't matter who is the target, the facts are irrelevant, ethics are unobserved, morality is not an issue for them, accuracy is not a factor in their calculus. Attack, smear, distort, lie, spew venom and hatred, spread it on. How does one 'get along' with people like this? It takes two to get along. If you and I are sitting here noting the facts, i.e. Greer is a social conservative with an impeccable reputation among both liberals and conserative lawmakers and peers (Not an easy reputation to get I'd have to guess) for his consistency in applying the principles of jurisprudence ... meanwhile the fanatics are calling him a murderer, a liberal stooge, demanding he be fired, some are recommending he be arrested and placed in prison, and a few have even hinted he should be lynched by a mob and hung or shot. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but how the hell does one 'get along' with those kinds of people? I don't think we can Wave, at the very least, it's not something we can control, they have to be willing to get along with the rest of the world.

Hey DS, let's get som... (Below threshold)

Hey DS, let's get something straight. I ain't takin sides in your beef with julie. It's just not worth it.

It's still a good summary a... (Below threshold)
chad:

It's still a good summary and it still doesn't change the fact that this issue has moved into a highly emotional realm. I would point out that since I don't know nor have any interest in who DS is he may have written the original too. Now if that indicates that I have been had so be it.

No I copied the case histor... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

No I copied the case history from the case history. I wrote the prior summary.

Julie, and anyone else who think they're somehow helping the nation by screwing up our freedoms, I have no problem with you stating whatever you wish, even if it's grossly inaccurate and inflammatory. Believe me, I've been attacked by forces far more effective and subtle than your efforts here. I can only guess based on your words, I don't know you and those words here are all I have to go by. But judging by your words, you seem to be a passionate individual and that's an admirable quality. But I think you may be a little screwed up regarding the nature of freedom and democracy and what it takes to maintain it. It's not an easy thing to keep alive and spread to others. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to securing our liberty and keeping it safe.

Liberty has to be universal. There is no other way which works. People have tried all kinds of methods to do it, but the only one that works over time is to let people say stuff freely, and act freely, even if it makes your blood boil and your hands shake in anger-as long as they do not inflict damage on your own right to say what you wish and act as you wish. That's why even though I think you're rather misguided and at times downright scary, I'd stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you demanding your right to say what you want (This Blog is actually not under the aegis of the US Constitution, and Paul can ban or censor anyone he wants because it his private property, but hopefully yo get what I'm driving at). I'd be very uncomfortable living in a nation which restricted that right. Your right.

Same for religious freedom. For all of us to have that cherished liberty requires that all of us be allowed to worship or reject whatever flavor of religion we like. That's what freedom means Julie; it means freedom for all.
People disagree on the borders of the gray area where one man's freedom encroaches on the rights of another man's freedom. But despite getting a bad rap from almost every side, the courts do a reasonably good job of defining those boundaries and their decisions are always open to revision, so I think it works fairly well.

The framers of the Constitution were wise. They knew that a majority rule if left unchecked could turn into a tyranny, just like any other oligarchy or theocracy which they were trying to rise above. If majority rule had no restrictions, then the people of giant Virginia could outvote the people of tiny Massachusetts, and vote to take their land and turn them all into slaves. So they enacted safeguards against that by detailing a Bill of Rights that the government could not violate. One of those was that the Federal Government could not encourage or discourage any particular religion. This was done because back then, even what we'd consider minor difference between Methodists and Quakers was a more looming issue than today. So the best solution, which everyone ended up agreeing on, was for the government to stay completely out of the religion business. You see experience and common sense had taught them that the opportunity to misuse religious prejudice for political gain was too great to be allowed to exist. That Separation issue has been abused, challenged, misused, ignored, and so on, so you can imagine how awful it might have been had it been written into the Constitution that you had to abide by the majority religious vote. The nation would have torn itself apart early on, and we would not be having this discussion.

The Founding Fathers were considered radical liberal trouble makers in their day for daring to suggest that the common citizen had such rights above the state, and that the state served the citizen rather than the other way around. Kings and Queens, Dictators and Warlords, scoffed at them and set about to ridicule and destroy them. The most powerful nation on earth, England, set out to crush them.
But they prevailed, and the idea[s] caught on like wildfire and swept the world. Within a few decades the idea of religious and political freedom, and democracy, was so popular that even Royalties which had persisted for generations in our European homelands and set atop enormous structures of entrenched wealth and power, were forced to offer similar liberties to their own people; all started by a handful of political radicals here in the New World.
Even today many nations struggle with democracy. It's gives me goosebumps to think that right now, our men and women are still giving their lives so that the people in the fertile crescent, who bequeathed unto the rest of us the gift of the written word, are now, finally, receiving the greatest gift that written word produced: Freedom and Democracy. Right now, in Iraq, we're still losing brave Americans who are carrying that work on and paying for it with the ultimate sacrifice.

Those men, our founding fathers, changed the entire globe, not with swords, or money, or cannons, or ships, but with the power of an idea that was so damn good, everyone else wanted in on it. And that's what makes our nation so unique; our freedoms are legally guaranteed by the US Constitution and we were the first to do it. Every judge, lawmaker, governor, President, executive advisor, and US soldier and marine is sworn to protect that document with their lives. And many millions have given their lives to insure that you and I enjoy that liberty.

So when you or any other David Koresh wanna be go off on one of your rants, I just smile and take solace in the fact that I live in a nation where you're allowed to do so, where we're all allowed to do so, and I feel pretty good about it. But honey pie, if you think we, and by we I mean democrats, republicans, independents, socialists, atheists, theists, scientists, metal workers, secretaries, mechanics, and the entire body politic, in this nation are going to stand idly by while a small minority of religious fundamentalist destroy that freedom so many have sacrificed to maintain, and is mankind's greatest hope; You are absolutely, totally, fucking out of your mind. It will never happen Julie. Get used to that fact.

Angel, um... nobody is actu... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

Angel, um... nobody is actually claiming that Terri is brain dead. You do realize that, right? A brain dead person requires a respirator. Terri breathes on her own.

DS I tuned out that rant of yours, coz it kinda goes on for a while. I noticed the phrase "religious fundamentalist" though and that was interesting.

I am atheist, and a lifelong, diehard abortion-rights supporter--and this case has caused me to realize that perhaps only a Right to Life amendment would protect a woman like Terri from being murdered legally by her husband.

And yes, I do know what that does to the abortion rights cause.

Bostonian that's your right... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Bostonian that's your right, to say what you feel. I doubt such an Ammendment will ever pass under this WH and Congress for oen simple reason; cost. Here in Florida where I live, we have quite a few folks always tragically on the precipice of death. A Constitutional Amm't of the kind you sugegst would be pretty tricky to word, and I'd guess it would mean that the state or the fed wold end up having to foot the bill, and that bill would balloon enormously as the baby boomers age. Possibly into the hundreds of billions or trillions. The current powers that be are moving in the opposite direction, slashing anything like that, so it's a worthwhile solution, but don't hold your breath.

Did Terri say to Michael wh... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

Did Terri say to Michael what he claims she said, and IF SO, has he correctly interpreted that for this situation? (Some people see no difference at all between brain death and severe brain damage; others see a world of difference. How would Terri have seen it?)

It is a plain fact Florida used a lower standard of evidence here than it would for an accused criminal.

The standard of evidence used was "clear and convincing" and there was no jury. In criminal cases, the standard is higher ("beyond reasonable doubt") and there must be a jury.

S9, DS, others:Whe... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

S9, DS, others:

When we do not clearly know the wishes of a person like Terri Schiavo, should we assume that these people feel as you do? Is that just?

I could misunderstand you, but you seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter too much what Terri's wishes actually are.

Does the government get to decide when innocent people should die?

DS, a right to life amendme... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

DS, a right to life amendment would not indicate who picks up the bill. It would merely prevent the government from taking innocent life or allowing innocent life from being taken deliberately.

Your cost argument, in other words, is bogus.

It's not my argument Boston... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

It's not my argument Bostonian. I'd be perfectly happy to give you idea a shot. But it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be imo.

First, it's just the economic facts. Someone would have to pay, and this stuff costs a lot of money. Should we keep people alive to the last possible second regardless of their own wishes or those nearest them? Should we force the insurance companies or medicare to pay, or should we foreclose on their relatives assets to cover the bill, or lay it on the taxpayers, locally, state wide, or federally? Would it be Consitutional to do any or all of that? What if the public overwhelmingly opposes such a measure, as seems to be the situation in this case? Do you really think politicians are going to back when 83 % of the public thinks Congress is out of line even getting involved?
Is it Consitutional to make states or local municpalities pay for Federal mandates, or vice versa? When the patient is at least partially to blame for their own predictament, do the same rules apply; if for example their condition was the result of a crack overdose, driving drunk, or comitting a crime? Who decides these matters, courts, congress, the spouse, the parents, the legal guardian, the children, the governor, the President? What if one or more parties diagree, who decides then? What if the pateint has a living will mandating they be allowed to die, would you still force them to accept your provision? Would it afect the process, or should it, if Schiavo was 90 years old, or age six, or an illegal alien? Your idea is a fine start in that at least it proposes a solution and a standard, and I'm happy to hear you out, but you haven't given me enough info and detail to have a good idea of what it is you're advocating.

BTW Bostonian, I know the t... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

BTW Bostonian, I know the thread is long so it's no big deal. But I've said repeatedly if I were the judge able to act as I please, I'd let her parents assume her care. But we can't have folks go charging off taking the law into their own hands everyt time they dion't like a ruling, especially when the vast majority feels that ruling is both reasonable, moral, and just.

ROTFLMAO It sort of obvi... (Below threshold)
julie:

ROTFLMAO It sort of obvious you read it,

nope. his crap is unreadable.

so who is the wacko now?

Uh, you are.

Check the mirror in case you don't know . . .

I tried, but your reflection keeps getting in the way. . .

Note Julie's attacks aga... (Below threshold)
julie:

Note Julie's attacks against me for simply presenting the case history.

No, Julie attacked you because you STOLED SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK OFF THEIR BLOG AND PRETENDED IT WAS YOUR OWN. And if you don't see anything wrong with that, try doing it to Kevin, Paul, or Jay wrote.

Dumbshit, I object you your foaming anti-religion rants and just your foaming period. And as I have told you more than once, I'm not religious. In fact, I'm an atheist. I'm just sick and tired of today's penchant for Christian bashing. It's kneejerk, unwarranted, and a sign of a sick mind -- YOURS.

It's still a good summar... (Below threshold)
julie:

It's still a good summary and it still doesn't change the fact that this issue has moved into a highly emotional realm. I would point out that since I don't know nor have any interest in who DS is he may have written the original too. Now if that indicates that I have been had so be it.

Would you be interested in buying a bridge? Ah, never mind. If you thought it was so good, you would complement the person who wrote it – not DS.

No I copied the case his... (Below threshold)
julie:

No I copied the case history from the case history. I wrote the prior summary.

No, you ripped off someone else's blog. You removed the hyperlinks so it would look like you wrote it. And then you took credit and complements for it by Had Chad.

There was no “prior summary” It was just another one of your long diatribes ranting and railing against religion and everything else. That was the immediate clue that you didn't write the timeline because there was none of your characteristic foaming.

Julie, and anyone else who think they're somehow helping the nation by screwing up our freedoms,

Do you realize how nutty this sounds? People don't agree with you and you say they are attacking democracy or screwing up "our freedoms". Yeah yeah, life as we know it will come to an end if people don't agree with you. Screwed up? I'm not the one foaming thousands of word per post. Fess up, I bet you have a bunker somewhere.

So when you or any other David Koresh wanna be go off on one of your rants,

Again, do you read the crap you write? Print it out and show it to a few people on the street and see them run. Better yet, take it to an emergency room and show it to a doctor there. Bring a toothbrush.

-S- wrote:unfortu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

-S- wrote:
unfortunately, you miss entirely the worth and value of what "emotional reasoning" is. And, for those of us who have capacity to realize when and how to apply it and when not to.

I very much know the worth and value of emotional reasoning. Fortunately, it has no place in the law. While you may have the "capacity" to realize when to apply it, it doesn't seem like you're using that capacity.

Emotion and emotional reasoning is not a bad thing, and actually contributes a great deal to creativity. And to just about every aspect of human civilization.

I agree completely. But the law is not a novel or a painting. It does not bend to emotion.

No one's yet been able to explain away not applying the word, "murder" to Terri Schiavo.

Try a dictionary.

-S- wrote:I puzzl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

-S- wrote:
I puzzle as to comments such as yours, however, that accomplish nothing but sorta place darkness and depression and the down side of converssation out there instead.

On the other hand, Julie, who posts vitriolic, obscenity-filled personal attacks with nary an intellectual thought, is worthy of your praise. Methinks you need to work on your "emotional reasoning".

Uhh Julie that is the case ... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Uhh Julie that is the case history that is making the rounds. It's on comments on several Blogs right now, they don't link it either. It's a matter of public record. I never said I wrote it, and if you assumed otherwise, that's really not my problem, and perhaps you should have asked first if you wanted to know, before flying off the rails.

And if you're an atheist, please do me and the rest of us atheists a favor, stop arguing on our behalf or claiming association with us. You're embaressing to a number of us, and we don't want your help or support hon. Personally, based on your rants and immature behavior, I think you're lying about that. But you have the right to lie babe ;)

Brian:What are you... (Below threshold)
julie:

Brian:

What are you, 10 years old? Mommy! Mommy! She's doing it, too! Jeesh.

Hey, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.
S. has her approach, and I have mine – which does not include talking to walls that talk back.

Uhh Julie that is the ca... (Below threshold)
julie:

Uhh Julie that is the case history that is making the rounds.

It doesn't matter who you stole it from because you still took someone's else's property and misrepresented it as your own. And anyway, you stole it from the guy who wrote it. THIEF!

It's a matter of public record.

I love your excuses for your bad behavior. What's your next excuse? That you just “found it.” lol.

I never said I wrote it, and if you assumed otherwise, that's really not my problem, and perhaps you should have asked first if you wanted to know, before flying off the rails.

Chad: Wow DS. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote about neo-christianity etc., but your summary of the case was excellent.

You: Well I appreciate that observation Chad.

Then of course there was your reluctance to fess up when caught. You have the ethics of a snake.

And if you're an atheist, please do me and the rest of us atheists a favor, stop arguing on our behalf or claiming association with us.

Oh, I would never claim association or associate with you. My belief or lack of belief is not a fanatical substitute for religion. Sick sick sick you are. You say you are an atheist but you're really just what you profess to hate – a religious fanatic.

You're embaressing to a number of us, and we don't want your help or support hon.

Because I've caught you stealing from other peoples website? Good!
Because I point out that your posts are nothing but hell fire and brimstone? Good.

Personally, based on your rants and immature behavior, I think you're lying about that.
More proof that it's really a religion for you!

But you have the right to lie babe ;)

But, you don't have the right to steal. And on that I'm not lying. THIEF!

Happy Easter Julie...or wha... (Below threshold)
sick-of-julie's-nonstop-vile-hatred:

Happy Easter Julie...or whatever.

How come the president and ... (Below threshold)
mike:

How come the president and congress are getting involve???
The judges haved acted according to the law, as cruel as it may sound, President bush and his little brother dont really care about Terry or her parents, they care about all of those right wing christian votes from the south. President Bush while being Governor of Texas passed a law denying the families of patients in a coma/vegetative status to keep them alive (connected).
What about if bush had agreed on stem cell research maybe Terry would be alright now

She is a hoot ins't she? Ju... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

She is a hoot ins't she? Julie I will be bashing facsist elements of all religions for the rest of time. If that upsets you sweetie, perhaps you should aboid reading my posts?

You also said: "I'm not the one foaming thousands of word per post.". Perhaps you should consider learning to construct posts containing more than a few incoherent self contradictions? There are online classes available, you can start you own Blog, or take a formal writing class. Any or all of which will sharpen your writing skills and probably also serve as effective therapy to help you through this tough time of personal growth and change you seem to be experiencing.

In between the lines I read an individual who is harboring some deeply held anger and pain.

Note your very first post addressed me and was quite smugly arrogant, I did not pick a fight with you. I did not respond or so much as mention your name. Your second comment to me was even more hostile, vulgar, and arrogantly smug. Again I did not respond. Your third comment directed at me began with "~DS~Stands for dumb shit, right?". In between these cries for attention you treated pretty much everyone else to the same gifted prose who dared to voice their own opinion. Julie, I'm trying to say this gently and not sound like a dick or condecsending; this is a Blog with a comments section. Comments are generally welcome in such venues. And that means on hotly debated issues, a comment section will generate statements you disagree with ... You are what is known as a troll. And unlike the past masters of days gone by, you're such an incompetent troll that I didn't even recognize you at first. I remember in the old days, when a troll tried to be the best darn troll they could be. They were true craftsman back then, nothing like the amateurs we have to put up with now.
Now, serioulsy, I was baiting you a bit before, but I'm worried about you. Although you try to come off like an unpleasent little peon, I think you have some kind of issues, or you wouldn't be so hostile to people you don't even know, out of the blue, who aren't even talking to you. I think it's probably unhealthy for me to say anything negative about you, so I won't. But whatever it is that is causing your behavior to be so erratic is no one's fault here. Maybe I just caught you on a shitty day and you're not normally like this. But if this is your normal MO, your behavior only makes sense if you have a mental problem, albiet a minor one, I don't mean to imply you're crazy, or you're very young and probably shouldn't be participating in adult matters.


I think it would be best if you pursued help and satisfaction with your issues with folks that care about you, rather than spouting off to strangers and becoming the Blog clown. You can get attention without making people dislike you sweetie.
Now look, if you can put together something halfway rational without trying lamely to insult me in response, I'll be happy to continue exchanging viewpoints with you in a productive manner. If not, I think it would be in your best interests for me to dismiss your comemnts going forward and not play into your drama.

All i know is if Michael Sh... (Below threshold)
kimberly johnson:

All i know is if Michael Shiavo is allowed to murder his wife with the courts help it will not end here there will be others just like abortions their will be husbands and wives claiming that their disabled mates last wishes were to die just watch this is the beginning of a new day every one and(YOU COULD BE NEXT)so get a living will Terri did'nt have one

Happy Easter Julie...or ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Happy Easter Julie...or whatever.
Posted by: sick-of-julie's-nonstop-vile-hatred at March 25, 2005 10:17 PM

Hi, Dumb Shit!
______________________________________

She is a hoot ins't she?
Talking to yourself?

Julie I will be bashing facsist elements of all religions for the rest of time. If that upsets you sweetie, perhaps you should aboid reading my posts?

Oh, Lord, now I’m a fascist because I fingered you for a thief and I don’t hate Christians!

You also said: "I'm not the one foaming thousands of word per post.". Perhaps you should consider learning to construct posts containing more than a few incoherent self contradictions?

So, I could foam like you? No thanks.

There are online classes available, you can start you own Blog, or take a formal writing class.
Any or all of which will sharpen your writing skills and probably also serve as effective therapy to help you through this tough time of personal growth and change you seem to be experiencing.

Nah, I get paid too much for what I do. And anyway, you're the hater: HateChristians HateNeocons. Neocon, that's code for jew, isn't it?

In between the lines I read an individual who is harboring some deeply held anger and pain.

In between your lines I read an individual who is trying to deflect from their own bad and whacked out behavior.

Note your very first post addressed me and was quite smugly arrogant,

No, I called you dumb shit, bc you were a dumb shit.

I did not pick a fight with you.

No, you were being a disgusting pig to someone else at the time.

I did not respond or so much as mention your name. Your second comment to me was even more hostile, vulgar, and arrogantly smug.

Not as vulgar, hostile, and smug as you.

Again I did not respond. Your third comment directed at me began with "~DS~Stands for dumb shit, right?". In between these cries for attention you treated pretty much everyone else to the same gifted prose who dared to voice their own opinion. J

Just calling you out, dumb shit. I knew you knew your name. And I get along quite well with a number of the people who posted on this thread. But, they don't shit over everybody like you.

Julie, I'm trying to say this gently and not sound like a dick or condecsending;

Too late. Not only do you sound like one, you are one!

this is a Blog with a comments section. Comments are generally welcome in such venues. And that means on hotly debated issues, a comment section will generate statements you disagree with ... You are what is known as a troll.

Nah, I just don't put up with fools. Oh, and you are known as, well actually you are a whacko: Hate Christians. Hate Neocons (jews) HateHateHate. That's you, Bunker Boy.

And unlike the past masters of days gone by, you're such an incompetent troll that I didn't even recognize you at first. I remember in the old days, when a troll tried to be the best darn troll they could be. They were true craftsman back then, nothing like the amateurs we have to put up with now.

That's your problem, dumbshit! Too much time on the intenet!

Now, serioulsy, I was baiting you a bit before,

Making yourself look like an idiot is baiting me?

but I'm worried about you. Although you try to come off like an unpleasent little peon, I think you have some kind of issues, or you wouldn't be so hostile to people you don't even know, out of the blue, who aren't even talking to you.

I know you by the crap you post. Be concerned with yourself, you ethically challenged whacko. HateHateHate, Bunker Boy. That's all you have posted. The Christians are out to get you! Oh, my!

I think it's probably unhealthy for me to say anything negative about you, so I won't. But whatever it is that is causing your behavior to be so erratic is no one's fault here. Maybe I just caught you on a shitty day and you're not normally like this. But if this is your normal MO, your behavior only makes sense if you have a mental problem, albiet a minor one, I don't mean to imply you're crazy, or you're very young and probably shouldn't be participating in adult matters.

The Neocons (jews) are out to get you! Oh, My!

I think it would be best if you pursued help and satisfaction with your issues with folks that care about you, rather than spouting off to strangers and becoming the Blog clown.

George Bush is out to get you! Oh, my!

You can get attention without making people dislike you sweetie.

I love your gay affectation, oh, my!

Now look, if you can put together something halfway rational without trying lamely to insult me in response, I'll be happy to continue exchanging viewpoints with you in a productive manner. If not, I think it would be in your best interests for me to dismiss your comemnts going forward and not play into your drama.

Dismiss? You can't control yourself, dumbshit. You're paranoid. Everyone is out to get you. Plus, I don't think there are too many people here who really want to read your crazy diatribes. I guess you can rip someone else's blog off again and post it as your own writings. Or, maybe you can invent another sockpuppet and you can answer each others posts.

This isn't a blog it's some... (Below threshold)
Lori:

This isn't a blog it's some personal fued with nothing of any value past about half way down. HEY YOU TWO >> GET A ROOM OR A DIVORCE !!! Whatever works for you... neither of you are saying anything other than slamming each other because you do not agree. GET OVER IT !! THIS IS AMERICA !!! Add some actual value and make it worth reading or just go watch tv because your bickering is as entertaning and enlightening as HeeHaw !!!

On the other hand, since we... (Below threshold)

On the other hand, since we are all waiting for a bloody miracle here and Easter Sunday is approaching, maybe she'll rise from the dead. But until then, the only thing that could possibly help matters along would be to hold a pillow over her head for a few minutes or to more than deeply sedate her. While admittedly cruel, it's far better than starving her to death. In retrospect, that 'diet' of hers; i.e., eating whatever you want as long as you have "two fingers for dessert," the undeniable cause of her problems, seems to have not been such a good idea. A lesson well learned, albeit a bit late, for the "soon to be departed."

Cindy, Living wills and DNR... (Below threshold)
Lou Ann:

Cindy, Living wills and DNR's have been around a lot longer than fifteen years. My mother had one and my son had one. My son made his out in 1988 and my mother long before that. My son passed on with the help of a hospice in his own room with me at his side. Please get your information right before you start telling the world how smart you think you are.

From the moment that Terri dies the suffering will really begin. I pray that you are never in the situation that you must decide if your loved one is ready to pass on. Believe me Cindy, it is no walk in the park.

I just can't believe this. ... (Below threshold)
EdnaM:

I just can't believe this. I don't understand it, and I can't believe this. Who here has gone a full day...24 hrs. Without food or water? Anyone?? Hands up please...okay, none of us. But I've gone for a while...12 hrs, max. Without food, and lots and lots of water...I get very hungry...
How can we say that she doesn't?? Hell...lets ask those kids on the TV, who everyone wants to send money to, but no one does...Hey? Does it hurt to know you're starving to death??
You two up there are arguing w/each other, while this poor girls tongue and eyes are BLEEDING. Yeah. That's good. Perfect American society.
Someone get the smaller picture. Everyone here is looking for a bigger picture...do what you have to do. Make a living will. Don't let this happen again. But who's actually looked at her?
The courts are looking out for her...they're doing what's best for her...yeah, don't let them do what's best for me then...especially if what's best is allowing you to have no chance...
She's had chance's?? Give her another...that's what all of us would want, right?? One more chance..please?? One more try...I'll do it right this time. Who said that one as a kid?? And you don't hear her saying that, but her parents do. They can see it in her face, even if it wasn't there...they could see it. Because it's who she was...to them. She's they're child. They're baby. They spent more time w/her than anyone...and they can see it.
It's a sad day in America when this is what we argue about. Whether or not it's right to take this completely helpless life away, without giving it the chance to prove it wants to live.
So you want my opinion. This is all BS. I don't care how old you are...you're parents will always love you, and be there, and try to help you out. Who can't understand that. THEY gave her life. THEY gave her dreams. THEY gave her everything. And now he takes it away. Yeah...lifes not fair...but this...
This is sick.

EdnaM

We have thousands of starvi... (Below threshold)
Colette Fjermestad:

We have thousands of starving people that no on cares about in Sudan. But our focus is on a brain-dead woman in Florida whose husband states would not want to live this way. We have all this passionate energy in "her" favor here. Why am I sickened by all of this? Why can't this be a peaceful end, and why aren't you directing your energy where it belongs?

Colette

Oh please, just let "Terri ... (Below threshold)

Oh please, just let "Terri the toad" die. She is starting to bore me already! After all, she technically died 12 years ago. Screw her! And why not??? Her husband Michael shows up at the Hospice at least two, usually three time a week and, in the guise of excercising his conjugal rights, bangs her like a screen door in a hurricane. Give me a break already!!! Let's put an end to the insanity before he finally knocks her up and it's a whole 'nother story!

the tone of this blog's Ter... (Below threshold)
Sanity Seeker:

the tone of this blog's Terri Schiavo debate is intense and honestly hurts my heart. it would be great to have moderate, intelligent discussion injected more often than highly-biased emotional opinion and personal attacks, but i suppose that's the nature of extremism, from both ends of the spectrum.

my own belief is that a person whose brain functions have long-since ceased is nothing more than a living body, and that loved ones who seek to sustain life at that point are succumbing to their own personal and desperate need to hold on to the past rather than valuing and honoring the life and love they once shared together with the affected person.

my father and mother both stated clearly that they would not want to be on life support of any sort after a life or brain-destroying incident. when my fathered died of a heart attack, my mother was able to locate his living will, but unable to locate his DNR card, and the paramedics, without the card, attempted to resuscitate him for an hour in my parents' home, in front of my distraught mother who knew this wasn't what my father wanted, and then for another 3 hours at the hospital. he did not again show life signs.

i realize that my father's situation was different from Terri Shiavo's, but i also know the healing and forward movement with her life that my mother was able to have following my father's death. they loved each other beautifully and simply. having to watch his desires dishonored despite clear and compelling directives to the contrary was horrific for my mother, and for his children and close friends who also knew his wishes. my mother now has several sets of her own DNR cards easily accessible in her home, her car, with our family and her close friends.

may the Schindlers find peace in Terri's passing, may Michael have closure and new beginning, may Terri's soul move on to a beautiful place, and may we all learn the lesson of direct death-planning conversation, and legal documentation so that our wishes are understood and honored.

As a nurse in a critical ca... (Below threshold)
Texas nurse:

As a nurse in a critical care setting I often find myself caring for patients like Terri. The sad part is not really knowing what her true wishes were. As a nurse I see many times that the Doctors tell the family there is no hope of recovery and then I watch that same patient get up and walk out of our hospital. Neurological medicine is the least understood of all the medical fields. It is the area of medicine where you see the most "Miracles". Not because god intervened, but because the Doctors where wrong. Looking at Terri in the few videos they have allowed I would say she will never be a productive member of our communities again, But there is not a doctor on the earth that can truthfuly say they know she can not feel, understnad nor think at all. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients die in hospitals, I can only recall maybe 5 that ever said just let me go, most look at the staff and say help me Please help me I am not ready to die, most beg you to come up with their miracle cure. Even the ones that have the advanced directives, and living wills usually look at you and say no I am not ready to die please help me. Medicine helps when it can but all persons will one day die. And when the time comes for that to happen no doctor, nurse, husband nor preist can stop it.
In all the family issues it seems that one thing has been forgotten. I do not know of any state that has legalized murder, suicide, assisted suicide or euthanasia. Seems that a Doctor recently spent time in jail for this same thing. Seems to me if you allow this person to starve to death simply because she can not put a spoon to her mouth then you open a large can of worms in our future to any parent that decides their child is not exactly "right" in their mind. If a baby is born with down syndrome then that baby could be starved to death under these ruleings because it is not right in the mind, and can not feed itself.
Starvation is a terrible thing to do. We collect and send money all the time to the nations for their starving people. yet we will allow a judge to starve a person here.
I thought a judge could pass judgement on a person that had committed a crime. Sad thing is many of our states do not even in an event of a crime allow a judge to set a death penelty to the convicted yet now this one can do it to a completly inocent person because her husband that has a family and lots of money when she dies said it was her wish.
Seems odd to me when a person is just not 100 % there that she would loose her right to live. Next thing it could be placed to persons that are mute, retarded, simi alert, and it could in all reality be placed on any of us one day.

I have read these posts and... (Below threshold)
DCS:

I have read these posts and been most impressed with the information and clarity that DS possesses. Julie, on the other hand is an idiot.

It's all about respect for ... (Below threshold)
Christian:

It's all about respect for life - you either have it or you don't. This same nation - which has allowed millions of unborn babies to be murdered while inside their mother's womb - is now wrestling with the "quality of life" question for those of us outside the womb. "When is the quality of one's life so poor that we should just go ahead and snuff them out?" It's twisted and warped and so depraved that you have to be a spiritual blind man to miss it: the same guys that want to end the death penalty for murderers support the death penalty for unborn babies. And these are the same people who would dismiss the life of Terri Shiavo. If the woman's not in pain and has family that are more than willing to take care of her...why in the world starve her to death? It's incomprehensible.

I feel sorry for the people... (Below threshold)
Sue Ann:

I feel sorry for the people who think that Michael Shiavo is right. There is so many questions that have been raised about his motives. You people need to remember that one day you or one of your loved ones could be in the same position as Terri. Do you honestly feel like you could kill that person? I had to watch my aunt die from starvation, not because she was being refused food and water, but because she had colon cancer and it hurt her more to eat than not to eat. It was one of the hardest things that I ever had to do, to watch her die and know that there was nothing that I or anyone else could do to stop it. If you are any type of parent at all, you will do anything and everything to protect your children, and would rather have them alive in whatever shape they are in as to not have them at all. I hope that there can be a miracle for Terri. If not, then at least her parents know that they did all they could do to save her and at least Terri will die knowing that she was loved by people who were willing to fight for her, not waiting on her to die so they could get on with their life. Heaven help Michael Shiavo when his time comes to die, someone may decide to pull the plug on him.

Oh, look--Dumb Shit has a B... (Below threshold)
julie:

Oh, look--Dumb Shit has a Bunker Buddy--DCS! Shouldn't you boys be getting ready to disrupt sunrise Easter services? Can’t have any of those horrible Christians practicing their faith, can you.

The Schindlers are arguing ... (Below threshold)
greg:

The Schindlers are arguing with the wrong entity. Their argument lies not with the courts or Terri's husband Michael. Their argument lies with God. They are playing a tug of war with the very God they claim to be followers of. They need a dose of faith and a little humility before God. And one last point.
Any government that is granted the power to step in and interfere with a personal family matter that has been decided by the courts, will be granted the power to interfere and pull the plug at the same time it is granted the power to restore her feeding tubes.

It is a counterfeit love th... (Below threshold)
John Palazzini:

It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority punishment or reward. In a nutshell, God had to kill Himself to appease Himself so that He would not have to roast us, His beloved creations, in HELL forever. He loves us more than we can ever comprehend, but if we don't return His affections, He will make us regret it for eternity. Now that is AMAZING GRACE

This is my first experience... (Below threshold)
Jillsnchaos:

This is my first experience with a "blog" and have been most impressed with the eloquence in which MOST people have expressed their OPINION. On the other hand, the immature attitudes, name calling, and juvenile behaviors that have been displayed have served as entertainment as opposed to appreciation of their viewpoint. I have to admit I spent well over two hours reading the BS comments made by the relative few. As for the rest of you no matter what your opinion is of this case... more power to you, and thanks for the info. I'm gonna have to pop in occasionally just to watch the drama that unfolds. I feel so much better about myself after reading others ridiculous, but entertaining, comments. LMAO Happy Easter to all from an atheist who is a registered democrat YET votes across party lines. I support my president, my govt., but not the christian fundamentalists trying to oust the "non believers". As for Terri, her parents, and her dickhead husband... , God help them all. (If there is one.)

Any government that is g... (Below threshold)
julie:

Any government that is granted the power to step in and interfere with a personal family matter that has been decided by the courts, will be granted the power to interfere and pull the plug at the same time it is granted the power to restore her feeding tubes.

Huh? Where did you think Greer got his power to order the tube removed? You rail against one entitiy using a gov. power but not a different entitiy using a gov. power.

I have seldom been so moved... (Below threshold)
dave:

I have seldom been so moved by a topic as this case. I have poured over available trial transcripts, deposiitons, etc, to try and understand the issues.

The case boils down to 3 issues:

- Is Michael Shiavo the legal guardian, which gives him the decision making power?
- Did Terri Shiavo desire to have the tubes pulled?
- Is she in a recoverable state? Or is she indeed in a persistive Vegetative state?

Point 1. From early testimony I read, and Florida Law, I believe the court made the right decision. The subsequent chatter about Michael is not substantiated, and has been considered many times in a fair basis and rejected. Personal opinion... I married my wife precisely because she IS the one I want making the call if I ever get this sick. Those of you who believe in the Sanctity of Marriage have to see this as an immutable conclusion. Ask Senator Frist who made the call when his father had to have life support removed. Frist's Mother, of course.

Point 2. There are 3 witnesses who swear under oath that Terri did not want to be a vegetable, sustained by tubes. Many people tell things to their friends and lovers that they really would not bring up in front of their parents. How many subjects are taboo around family and parents (and your church). The court could ONLY take testimony on what people actually heard, not heresay, or implied intent (ie. "I knew Terri and she would never want that")

Again, the courts have consistently found that Terri did not want tubes, and to be left in a vegetative state.

Point 3. If you ignore Michael's Doctors, Schindler's Doctors, and Doctors who have not examined the patient, you find that the remaining doctors (appointed by the court) unanimously concluded she is in a persistive vegetative state. Many of the people popping up recently with DCF are known activists who have strong ties to RTL and Conservative Christian organization. Again, ignore the partisans on both sides, and the impartial doctors conclude the same thing.

So at the end of the day, ignoring all the pablum from the conservative circles, congress, and the internet, this is a fairly simple case from a legal standpoint. From a moral and ethical standpoint it is obviously much more complex.

A word about the judges in this case. I know the conservatives would love this to be filled with 'activist judges", liberals, and Clinton Appointees, but his is not the case. Greer is an ELECTED judge, who is conservative, and very well respected. Whitmore (Federal) is hightly regarded, and cannot be classified a liberal by any stretch. The Judges who voted to deny the appeal in Atlanta consisted of a Bush and a Clinton appointee. You can imagine that the Supreme Courts of the US & Florida are not a smoking gun either. Personal Opinion: The people who have threatened the judges in this case need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Their actions subvert our country in a most vile way. The Church who asked Judge Greer to leave are the most un-Christian people I can imagine.

I feel for the Schindler's, and Shiavo's, as I have had to go through this with my mother, father, and father in law.

Correction in previous post... (Below threshold)
dave:

Correction in previous post... It was Tom Delay who's father had life support removed, and Tom DeLay's mother who had the final say. They were lucky that all family members agreed. It might be also noted that the DeLay family files a product liability lawsuit in response to their father's death. Hmmmmm. I though Tom DeLay didn't believe in those kind of lawsuits.

My apologize to the Frists for my typo.

The case boils down to 3... (Below threshold)
julie:

The case boils down to 3 issues:
According to you, but not necessarily to everyone else.

Point 1- Is Michael Shiavo the legal guardian, which gives him the decision making power?
They are no longer living as man and wife. He has a clear conflict of interest. Therefore, he should have been removed as legal guardian.

I married my wife precisely because she IS the one I want making the call if I ever get this sick.
And if she divorces you, or is filling the roll of spouse to another man, can you honestly say you wd want her making life and death decisions for you? Can other people? There is an old legal maxim that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety and shd be treated as such. Can you not see how others wd view this as a conflict of interest and therefore it shd be treated as a conflict of interest?

Those of you who believe in the Sanctity of Marriage have to see this as an immutable conclusion.
Uh, no. No we don't. I love when people state opinion and call it conclusion.

Point 2 - Did Terri Shiavo desire to have the tubes pulled?
God, I wish people would stop calling human beings vegetables or vegetative. All three wits never said anything until long after the fact. And I do not remember any of the “recovered memories” of the wits describing long, informed, discussions. Only one person found these wits credible and that was applying the lowest level of burden of proof. Uh, by the way, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. IOW, Terri Schiavo did not make the statement in court. So, any testimony as to Schiavo's wishes is hearsay.

Does the fact that it is hearsay make it inadmissible? Nope. Does the fact that it is admissible by law make it credible evidence? Nope. "I knew Terri and she would never want that" Objection, you're Honor, lack of foundation and speculativie . Sustained.

Again, the courts have consistently found that Terri did not want tubes, and to be left in a vegetative state.
No, only one person did. Every other court reviewed the case for procedural errors. No one else was in a position to judge credibility because they neither heard nor saw the wits testify. It's one of the reasons why the right to confrontation is so important and is guaranteed by the constitution. Now I don't' know, and I would be surprise if it did, whether Florida gave the right to a jury in this type of case. Still, for something as serious as ending someone's life, I find the lack of procedural guarantees abhorrent. And I, like a number of people, don't find Greer's findings of fact credible.

Point 3. - Is she in a recoverable state? Or is she indeed in a persistive Vegetative state?
You are assuming the doctors appointed aren't biased. All expert wits have biases. And even if a court gives you a choice of a selection of three, due to the luck of the draw, you can be literally screwed. To make a determination one would have to read everything the doctor has written. I assume you didn't do that. I'm not going to argue what state she is in since it's irrelevant if she did not give consent or she has not been afforded due process. I am sure there are many others who could argue with you that she is not in pvs.

Many of the people popping up recently with DCF are known activists who have strong ties to RTL and Conservative Christian organization.
I have no idea who DCF is or RTL. I, and a number of people who have similar opinions as I do, are not associated with any Conservative Christian organizations. But, acting in your same spirit, should I card people for their affiliation with Libertarian, Democrat, or Progressive affiliations? Should their opinions be automatically dismissed?

Again, ignore the partisans on both sides, and the impartial doctors conclude the same thing.
And again, this is an opinion and not fact.

So at the end of the day, ignoring all the pablum from the conservative circles, congress, and the internet,
Wow! You're sure not biased! May I dismiss your opinion in the way you dismissed others based on your political affiliation?

this is a fairly simple case from a legal standpoint.
From a legal standpoint this is anything but a fairly simple case.

A word about the judges in this case. I know the conservatives would love this to be filled with 'activist judges", liberals, and Clinton Appointees, but his is not the case.
Most people don't have a clue on how to evaluate judges. They don't sit in their court rooms and listen to their rulings or read their written opinions. And even if they did, the average person wouldn't understand most of them. I don't know of too many people who when it comes down to voting for a judge knows who to vote for. They may ask an atty friend, who often doesn't have a clue, either. Just because someone was nice to you when you appeared in their court once or twice isn't a ringing endorsement. Just because some one ruled in your favor isn't one either. They get these ratings from the bar association but so much of that, and other endorsements from other groups, is based on politics plain and simple.

Greer is an ELECTED judge, who is conservative, and very well respected.
And your opinion is based on what? Someone else's opinion? And what is their opinion based on? Why do you label him conservative? How is that relevant to his decision making abilities?

Whitmore (Federal) is hightly regarded, and cannot be classified a liberal by any stretch.
He is a Clinton appointee. I thought you were touting that there wee no Clinton appointees? On what/who do you base your opinion on that he is highly regarded? And on what do they base their opinion on that he is highly regarded? On what do you base your opinion on that he cannot be classified as a liberal by any stretch ?

The Judges who voted to deny the appeal in Atlanta consisted of a Bush and a Clinton appointee.
How is this relevant? Have you actually read their decisions and informed an opinion based on them?

You can imagine that the Supreme Courts of the US & Florida are not a smoking gun either.
And what does this mean? Really, this is all gobbly gook. It's like you're giving a wink wink nod nod and that is suppose to be a basis for a serious opinion. It isn't.

Personal Opinion:
Almost everything you have written is personal opinion.

The people who have threatened the judges in this case need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Their actions subvert our country in a most vile way.
Well, they committed a criminal act. They have not “subverted the country”. I have to say, I'm really sick of this “ life as we know it will come to an end” or this will created a “constitutional crisis” over the top language. Obviously, you aren't the only guilty party. But, hey, no it hasn't, and no it won't.
The Church who asked Judge Greer to leave are the most un-Christian people I can imagine.
Are churches not to take positions on social issues based on it's teachings because it may conflict with an opinion of a member? I don't think so.
You ignore that there were other “unrelated problems with the church” and Greer. Why did you leave that out? Greer stopped attending and donating to the church. Then he told the St. Pete's Times on 3/6/05: "If I don't like what the St. Pete Times writes about me, my only recourse is to cancel my subscription." So he stopped his donations to the church, though he is still a member.

So, the church said to him, "I am not asking you to do this, but since you have taken the initiative of withdrawal, and since your connection with Calvary continues to be a point of concern, it would seem the logical and, I would say, biblical course."

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Neither side was happy with the other. And per Greer, the problem went beyond the Schiavo case.

I feel for the Schindler's, and Shiavo's,

I don't think the Schindler would think that you really “feel” for them. Sorry.

If someone were to 'starve ... (Below threshold)
Cheri:

If someone were to 'starve to death' an animal, they'd be put in jail. When is it okay to kill another human? How is it that people actually justify doing this to Terri??? What is this nation turning into??! Terri was not on 'life support' she was merely being fed. If her family(parents/siblings) wished to care for her, they should've been allowed. As for her spouse, he divorced her in every aspect but legally when he began his affair with his lover. This is truly a sad place we call America. May God bless Terri and her loved ones.

Julie/Cheri,The th... (Below threshold)
dave:

Julie/Cheri,

The three pooints I brought up are the legal points. Sure there are moral points as well, but this is a country of laws.

Actually, most of my points were the result of an impartial evaluation by a court/Jeb Bush Guardian ad litem.

On Michael dating other woemn, this was done with the encouragement of the Schindlers. As reported in the Guardian ad Litem's report to jeb Bush. Read it.

http://floridahealthinfo.hsc.usf.edu/TheresaSchiavoFinalReport1December2003.pdf

There were 5 doctors who review this case in detail. 3 found her to be in a Persistive Vegetative State. 2 were unsure. The 2 who were unsure were picked by the Schindlers, but could not produce any medical or scientific evidence to the contrary and were unclear in their testimony. Again, not my words, but the words of Jeb Bushes appointee.

As I said in my posting. IGNORE the doctors picked by Schindlers and Shiavo. What do the independently appointed doctors say? Of course they don't agree with you, so you won't listen.

If the Schindlers came up with ONE real Doctor, who has any credentials at all, and is not obviously a rabid Pro-Lifer, I would take pause. But every single person they bring to the table is tainted. Like it or not, it is a fact. How about asking the head of nuerology of the Mayo Clinic? I have no idea who that is, or what they think, but at least they would be credible.

This is fairly simple from a legal standpoint, that's why it has survides 30 rulings, the Congress, the Governor, and the President. If it was more complex it would have found some appealable issue.

Conservative vs. Liberial is measurable, but I am not sure you would ever agree with any measurement.

Over 30 rulings have made the Schindlers look like a family who cannot let go and is trying to slander and lie to get their way.

As for the people who threatened the judges. This kind of crime is worse than usual, since it has a multiplicative effect. Since judges have a great impact on society in general, threats against them have a braoder effect than a threat against a single private individual.

If you don't like the laws of this country, then change the law. Don't cry when the law doesn't see things your way.

I am tired of the whacked out radical Christian Conservative Minority ramming their percieved morals down our throats and in other orafices. It's OK to send Johnny off to bomb the daylights of thousands of innocent Iraqi's but let one woman who has essentially been a vegetable for 15 years die a peaceful death, and they are all up in arms. and yes, it is peaceful. Care to debate that?

BTW...In the eyes ... (Below threshold)
dave:

BTW...

In the eyes of the Catholic church, Terri and Michael are married FOREVER. In the church they are considered married and will remain so until one dies, not until one has an affair.

A conundrum, huh? On one hand, the right to lifers say she was a devout catholic and would want life support ad nauseum, but then immediately assume she would violate church tenets when her husband proceeded on with his life at the urging of her parents.

BTW, A plausible reason he never mentioned her desire not to be "on tubes" until much later is that HE didn't let go of thinking she would get better. In the Guardian's report to Jeb Bush, it is clear that Michael was extremely attentive to terri for the first few years. Not opinion, but Facts from the court docs.

There is something intrinsi... (Below threshold)
Deirdre:

There is something intrinsically evil and wrong about waiting and wathcing someone die. I saw the last few hours of my great aunts death while in a hospital. She was given a constant morphine drip to take away the continuous startled look and to keep her "comfortable". It was an awful experience and I could not help but think how unnatural it was to watch her die like that. Unlike when my son was born and the hopeful anticipation of his birth, the excitement of life, it was thrilling and natural. When a person is ill or in a life threatening situation it is right to do whatever is possible to save that persons life, I think that is what Terri's family is trying to do. It is only natural to try to preserve life, it goes against the natural order of things to purposefully put someones life to an end. God help those who try to play God.

The three pooints I brou... (Below threshold)
julie:

The three pooints I brought up are the legal points. Sure there are moral points as well, but this is a country of laws.

No, they are your opinion. My God, what do they teach you in school these days?!

Point 1: I believe .... my wife....I want .... immutable conclusion
Not! No legal points there buddy boy.

Actually, most of my points were the result of an impartial evaluation by a court/Jeb Bush Guardian ad litem.

Just because YOU label something inpartial does not make it impartial. It is YOUR opinion. Jeesh!

And exactly what are you trying to say? A court GAL? A Bush GAL? Don't answer because I don't want any more of my time wasted. The court is not impartial because you say it is. Bush did not appt the GAL. The legislature gave the authority for the court to appt the GAL. Obviously, you have the need to label it something it is clearly is not. Whether it is out of ignorance or deciept, it's a bore.

And I don't' give a shit who he is dating or why. He is not acting like her husband therefore he shd not have guardianship based on the fact he is her husband. Plus, there is a clear conflict of interest. He shd have been removed as guardian. I have never run across a situation where a more blatant conflict of interest and guardianship wasn't terminated.

[snip]Again, not my words, but the words of Jeb Bushes appointee.

See above. Also, as I previously stated, I don't care what state she may be in. There is insufficient evidence as to her intentions and she was not afforded due process.

As I said in my posting. IGNORE the doctors picked by Schindlers and Shiavo. What do the independently appointed doctors say? Of course they don't agree with you, so you won't listen.

See above and learn to read. Try addressing the arguments I made and not the arguments you want me to make. On second thought, don't address the arguments I've made because I don't want you wasting my time any more.

If the Schindlers came up with ONE real Doctor, who has any credentials at all, and is not obviously a rabid Pro-Lifer, I would take pause.

Blah blah blah. See above.

Like it or not, it is a fact.

Like it or not there is no clear evidence of her intention and she was not afforded procedural due process.

This is fairly simple from a legal standpoint, that's why it has survides 30 rulings, the Congress, the Governor, and the President. If it was more complex it would have found some appealable issue.

See, this is what I hate about these internet pissing matches. You do not know what the hell you are talking about. You are clearly not an atty yet you feel qualified to give opinions of law and lecture on appellate procedure. Give it up, poseur!

You are willing to kill this woman based on the decision of one judge. She was never, NEVER given full appellate review. That a decision this serious could be made based on one person's findings and with the lowest and I mean the lowest burden of proof is disgusting.

Conservative vs. Liberial is measurable, but I am not sure you would ever agree with any measurement.

TRANSLATION of ABOVE STATEMENT BY DAVE: You were right. I don't' know what I'm talking about when I talk about the evaluation of judges and what these labels mean or their validity. I'm just a jerk with an opinion and a political axe to grind.

Over 30 rulings have made the Schindlers look like a family who cannot let go and is trying to slander and lie to get their way.

And it makes you look like a ghoul who has some bizarre interest in seeing this woman killed.

As for the people who threatened the judges. This kind of crime is worse than usual, since it has a multiplicative effect. Since judges have a great impact on society in general, threats against them have a braoder effect than a threat against a single private individual.

You love to hear the sound of your fingers typing, don't you? Threatening a judge is a crime. Threatening this judge does not make it a greater crime. Judge's are threaten every day. The perpetrators are arrested and prosecuted every day. At no time has life as we know it come to an end! Get a grip!

If you don't like the laws of this country, then change the law. Don't cry when the law doesn't see things your way.

Here's a better idea: Don't shoot your ignorant mouth off about the law when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I am tired of the whacked out radical Christian Conservative Minority ramming their percieved morals down our throats and in other orafices. It's OK to send Johnny off to bomb the daylights of thousands of innocent Iraqi's but let one woman who has essentially been a vegetable for 15 years die a peaceful death, and they are all up in arms. and yes, it is peaceful. Care to debate that?

What's to debate? You're just a fucking nutjob who wants to make this into a political issue because you hate anyone who doesn't think like you.

In the eyes of the Catho... (Below threshold)
julie:

In the eyes of the Catholic church, Terri and Michael are married FOREVER. In the church they are considered married and will remain so until one dies, not until one has an affair.

How irrelevant to the argument.

A conundrum, huh?

Not at all. Not even an issue.

BTW, A plausible reason he never mentioned her desire not to be "on tubes" until much later is that HE didn't let go of thinking she would get better.

An even more plausible reason is that he was committing fraud against the insurance company.

In the Guardian's report to Jeb Bush, it is clear that Michael was extremely attentive to terri for the first few years. Not opinion, but Facts from the court docs.

Had to maximize the potential pay off from the insurance company? Okay, you convinced me. He's scum.

I'm a nut job? Puleeze.</p... (Below threshold)
dave:

I'm a nut job? Puleeze.

Just include me with the other 70% of Americans who think the tubes should have been pulled long ago. Majority doesn't make right, but at least I am in good company.

I keep reading all this BS about the case, yet it is never substantiated by any rational evidence.

For instance, all the bleating about no brain scans ever being done to Terri, yet 2 were introduced as evidence in 2000 & 2002. I guess that is just my opinion. Sorry.

Question: Why were the Schindelrs convinced Terri was in a Persistive Vegetative State until they did not get any of the settlement? Then they somehow came to the realization that they weren't getting any money, and suddenly they turn on Michael, demand custody, and say she is alert and responsive. Seems like they were trying to get control of all that money. They are very bitter people lashing out at everyone. Most recent delusion: "The Hospice is trying to kill Terri with Morphine." What a crock. If I was the hospice, I'd probably sue the snot of them for that.


Now I see Michael is pushing for an autopsy. I guess we will at least find something out about what's upstairs. Again, maybe the Medical Examiner in Pinellas County will be a liar too. You never know how deep the "Culture of Death" run... correct? We are all a bunch of ghouls to you.


In fact, we are just realists. I have been through the death watch/DNR decison making 3 times in my life. Hope to never have to do it again. Have you? Do you have an Aunt packed in some home, essentially getting pumped full of meds every day? Think she is enjoying it? At least you have someone to visit to make you feel better.

Julie wheezed and ranted . ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Julie wheezed and ranted . . . .

Blah-blah-blah-blah, (continue ad nauseam)

You really are a sick little troll aren't you?

Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you still hold to your stupid, ignorant, lop-sided rants.

They used to be amusing, now they are tiring. You and -S- should share a blog with your common delusion.

I

I'm a nut job?,... (Below threshold)
julie:

I'm a nut job?,

And a real foamer, too!

Just include me with the other 70% of Americans who think the tubes should have been pulled long ago.

You mean the ones that are too dumb to recognize the most obviously biased questions I have ever seen written? Yeah. You're that dumb, too.

I keep reading all this BS about the case, yet it is never substantiated by any rational evidence.

You read the crap you write?

For instance, all the bleating about no brain scans ever being done to Terri, yet 2 were introduced as evidence in 2000 & 2002. I guess that is just my opinion. Sorry.

Actually, it's another example of you answering the arguments you want me to make and not the arguments I made. You must do really poorly on exams.

Question:

[snip another diversionary technique/further example of your poor reading comprehension skills]

Now I see Michael is pushing for an autopsy.

Push?
1. There wd have been an autopsy no matter what.
2. And if there weren't, all he had to do is request one.
3. He could always pay for one himself.
4. Must you fudge everything?

I guess we will at least find something out about what's upstairs.

Maybe, we could do the same with you?

In fact, we are just realists.

Are you kidding me? You see boogiemen everywhere you look. Ranting and raving how Christians and republicans are going to get you. Jeesh! Get help already. You have some need to pretend you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't. You can't distinguish fact from opinion – especially your own.

[snip the predictable 'you could never have been through what I have been through so you could not possibly know and therefore you have no right to an opinion' blah blah blah argument. Sorry, dude, I keep private facts off the internet. But frankly, life experience-wise, you're no competition to me.]

Do you have an Aunt packed in some home, essentially getting pumped full of meds every day?

No. Got one you're trying to unload?

Think she is enjoying it?

Not if you keep threatening to starve her.

At least you have someone to visit to make you feel better.

Uh, you're the one who needs to kill off the disabled to make yourself feel superior, not me.

You really are a sick li... (Below threshold)
julie:

You really are a sick little troll aren't you?

Oh, no! It's the “because you don't agree with me you must be a sick little troll argument!” lol!

Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary,

Uh, still waiting.

you still hold to your stupid, ignorant, lop-sided rants.

Sorry, you have me confused with your friends, dumb shit and dave.

They used to be amusing, now they are tiring.

Yeah, all the Christian bashing and neocon (code for jew) bashing by you and your friends is both tiring and disgusting.

You and -S- should share a blog with your common delusion.

I would be honored to share anything with -S-. But, alas, she is the deluded one, not I. She thinks she can reason with people like you and keeps trying. Me, I see you for what you really are. I guess -S- still holds out hope because she is, gasp, a Christian.

Thanks Julie,I fin... (Below threshold)
dave:

Thanks Julie,

I finally made a team (me, DavodB, & DS). I didn't know you have to annoint me. Bless you.

Actually, I did pretty damn well on exams (20 years ago). Of course on the ones that count (i.e. real life), I do even better.

I don't resort to name calling and belittling. I don't have to, the facts speak for themselves.

Tell me, Julie, try this for an exercise. explain the Michael Shiavo side of the case, in plain words. Can you even do it? Are you so blind that you cannot even write one sentence without a vindictive phrase?

Who are you Julie? A lawyer (I hope not), a Nurse (doubtful since you know nothing of pain and suffering). What do you do when you ar enot suffering us with your spew?

Bloody Americans are so bac... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Bloody Americans are so backwards sometimes... Europe is so much more progressive in this area. Canada has even had over 3 of these cases already... why has is not been a media circus up here? because we have more class, and CNN doesn't run our country.

I finally made a team (m... (Below threshold)
julie:

I finally made a team (me, DavodB, & DS). I didn't know you have to annoint me. Bless you.

Anoint? Lump is a better word.

Actually, I did pretty damn well on exams (20 years ago). Of course on the ones that count (i.e. real life), I do even better.

Unbelievable for someone with such poor reading and analytical skills.

I don't resort to name calling and belittling.

Sure you do. You're just too biased to even recognize that you're doing it.

I don't have to, the facts speak for themselves.

You're cherry picked irrelevant, off point facts? Oh, yeah, they are sooooo persuasive.

Tell me, Julie, try this for an exercise. explain the Michael Shiavo side of the case, in plain words. Can you even do it?

Why would I do it? This isn't a game. You've wasted more than enough of my time. But, keep posting and I'll keep responding. I won't, however, have you dictate what I write.

Are you so blind that you cannot even write one sentence without a vindictive phrase?

Not so blind as to fall for this rhetorical crap.

Who are you Julie? A lawyer (I hope not), a Nurse (doubtful since you know nothing of pain and suffering).

I hope you don't have to depend on your intuitive skills to make a living.

What do you do when you ar enot suffering us with your spew?

You're the one spewing. I'm the one with the shovel trying to clean up your mess.

Bloody Americans are so ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Bloody Americans are so backwards sometimes... Europe is so much more progressive in this area. Canada has even had over 3 of these cases already... why has is not been a media circus up here? because we have more class, and CNN doesn't run our country.

Then make sure you and your ilk stay out of this country. We can't seem to keep you out. You're whole identity as a nation is only “we're not American.” That's it. Nothing more. And nothing to brag about. And, don't forget you're entirely dependent on this country for both your national security and your economy. Class? A boring bunch of followers is a more accurate discription.

ps: cnn has the lowest rating around. And even if it had the highest ratings, if you haven't noticed, this country isn't led around by the msm. God, if you ever what to see a more rabid and bias press – look at your own.

Since this thread started o... (Below threshold)
dave:

Since this thread started out on a competency of counsel topic, I believe that the Schindlers aren't the only ones who need better lawyers.

Julie, maybe you could read this and report back to the team....

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf

Essentially, the Fed courts are kicking the Schindlers, since the Act passed, but Bush & Crew Dictated HOW the Federal review had to be performed. Clear violation of Separation of Power, and thus deemed unconstitutional.

In fact the opinion gives them a roadmap for the next time. Read closely Julie... Maybe call Frist and give him a few pointers....

I especially like the Zinger at the end, when the Opinion states, to uphold the Act, would be to legislate from the bench by creating new law, hence being open to being called 'Activist Jurists".

I think Frist and Crew pissed off the judges... Nice quotes on the good Doctor's subversive plan to get the tube put in, since obviously the court could not review, given the restraints in the ACT, without keeping Shiavo alive long enough to make a ruling.

Report: You understand litt... (Below threshold)
julie:

Report: You understand little to nothing of the opinion.

Julie,What part of... (Below threshold)
dave:

Julie,

What part of this sentence do you not get:

"In resolving the Shiavo controversy it is my judgement that, despite sincere and altruisitc motivation, the legistlative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blue print for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

I may not be a lawyer, but I can read.

This was a denial of a hear... (Below threshold)
julie:

This was a denial of a hearing en banc. Six of the eleven justices gave no opinion. So, for you to extrapolate th opinion of one on to the rest is, frankly, dishonest.

Two of the justices concurred in the denial, not the opinion of justice one, solely to respond to one of the dissenting justices. Please note how these justices spell out what I have been telling you ad nauseam regarding the required deference given to the fact finder. So, all your yapping about independent review of the facts, is dishonest.

Two of the justices wd have granted the hearing and would have granted an injunction to put her tube back in and stop the barbaric starving of her. Note the criticisms in the footnotes of the other decisions regarding the standards to grant injunctive relief. Also, the justices found the Schindler's had stated a claim based on a violation of due process under the 14th amendment. Also, a claim under insufficiency of the evidence. Note their attack of Birch's opinion.

I bet you never even read it, did you? And of course, you don't have the intellect to understand it let alone come to an independent decision as to who is correct. So once again, give it up. You do not know what the hell you are talking about and never will.

Julie-I bet you wa... (Below threshold)
dave:

Julie-

I bet you want to be Ann Coulter when you grow up don't you? I just read her diatribe and it reminded me of you.

Funny you both have the habit of denegrating the intelligence of someone who doesn't agree with you.

Ann make a lot of money entertaining the folks, do you?

You are absolutely correct that the only finding of fact was by Greer. Fortunately he was correct in his assessment.

I bet you want to be Ann... (Below threshold)
julie:

I bet you want to be Ann Coulter when you grow up don't you? I just read her diatribe and it reminded me of you.

No, I'm quite happy being me. Why, do you want to be Ann Coulter? She did graduate Harvard law, by the way. Being the narcissus you are, no doubt you believe you know more about law than she does. But, of course, that is your disorder talking.

Funny you both have the habit of denegrating the intelligence of someone who doesn't agree with you.

Funny. It was YOU in your FIRST POST who insulted everyone's intelligence. And it was YOU who denigrated the people you disagreed with. You are so brainwashed that you are incapable of recognizing and controlling your own hatred and biases. So, don't whine.

Ann make a lot of money entertaining the folks, do you?

And, what do you get paid in, Dave? Raw fish or kibble?

You are absolutely correct that the only finding of fact was by Greer. Fortunately he was correct in his assessment.

Yes, I am right. That Greer was the one finder of fact is a fact, not an opinion. That he was correct in his finding, however, is your uneducated, ego based opinion.




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:

[email protected]

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