Terri Schiavo’s family’s quest to head off the court-ordered starvation set to begin Friday at 1:00 p.m is out of judicial options.
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) – A state appeals court Wednesday refused to block the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube later this week in the long-running right-to-die battle between the woman’s husband and her parents.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland turned down a request from Bob and Mary Schindler for a delay while they pursue further appeals, and for a new trial on their daughter’s fate.
Schiavo, 41, suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped beating, and court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state.
Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has said she told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents dispute that, and say she could get better.Terri’s husband Michael Schiavo recently turned down a $1 million offer to let his wife’s parents decide her medical treatment.
The Florida Legislature and Congress are both moving through bills that would block the feeding tube removal, but the court has already struck down Terri’s Law in Florida which rescued her from an earlier death-by-starvation order.
why inflict the torture of starvation? Why not simply a lethal injection or a bullet to the head? That’s what we do with unwanted or badly injured animals, why not in this case?
If only that were lega. If it were legal to give her a lethal injection, would that solve the problem for you? Is it the death or the starvation? Keep in mind that she will be so heavily sedated that she’ll feel nothing once the feeding tube is removed.
Stacy,
As a citizen you are obliged to think and criticize. This is the obligation of citizenship.
You are still dodging.
The entire court system is broken and need to be fixed. The written law has been made a sham by judges who invent rules where none have been legislated. We have deferred to them unquestioningly for too long. During this time partisan hacks have been put on the bench in place of prudent jurists. By your logic, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.
That was the decision of the Democrats for the past 40 years.
As a result, they have zero authority for you to appeal to in this argument.
Stacey,
I was being sarcastic, yes. Because you were being pretty condescending. The facts are that CTs are not used in these kinds of cases. Call a neurologist and they would say that a CT is too blury to tell anything and anything unless there is extreme brain damage (which would put her in much worse condition). There are plenty of reputable doctors who agree to this. You have to use an MRI. Why not do this? I hope that if the same happens to me or you they don’t rely on a test that is inconclusive to diagnose my brain activity.
In a perfect world the courts would be honest and honorable. I can tell you from first hand experience that they are not.
While you are looking through your law dictionary for your next tirade you might pause on the term “hearsay”. The court decided that TS-S would not want a feeding tube based only on the “good word” of one person “hearsay”. If a friend of hers had stated that Terri told her she could have her record collection in the event of severe debility she would not have gotten them, as there was only “hearsay” and no written directive to that end. What is wrong with this picture?
While I am sure that line 22 of your parents form 1040 is quite impressive that does not automatically give you the right to presume that I agree with any of your opinions so carefully implanted in your head within the halls of that fine institute of education.
If you choose to believe in the fairy tale of a fair system looking out for the weak that is your choice. However, the elitist, I know more than you attitude you display does not fly well in the real world. If you ever go there you might just find that out the hard way.
I Strongly suspect by now you and several other readers of this blog view me as a contemptible bastard. If so you are in good company including the new head of the DNC. I’d rather be right than popular though.
Stacy,
As to your question about cost.
What has the government done in all other cases? We spend the money. There is no limitation, only commitments. By your logic, how do you propose to fund SS? The situation is the same.
Otherwise, we would be measuring the utility of each life (and liberal arts colleges would be shut down).
Former “vegetative” patient speaks at Schiavo rally
Clearwater, Florida, Mar. 16 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) – Last
Saturday a rally of over 300 supporters of Terri Schiavo and her
family’s battle to save her life heard the firsthand account of the
sufferings and remarkable recovery of Kate Adamson. Struck down
in 1995 at the age of thirty-three by a rare double brain stem stroke,
Adamson, then a mother of two young girls, was completely
paralyzed; she was unable even to blink her eyes. Like Terri
Shiavo, the medical staff treating her questioned the merit of
continuing the administering of food and water.
Terri Schiavo, although not nearly as severely disabled as
Adamson once appeared to be, is slated to have her feeding tube
removed at 1 pm this Friday. Like Terri, at one point Kate
Adamson’s feeding tube was removed for a full eight days before
being reinserted due to the intervention of her husband (also a
competent lawyer).
Frequently described by medical authorities as a humane way to
die, Adamson– now nearly fully recovered from her stroke–
testified before the crowd that this form of legalized execution was
“one of the most painful experiences you can imagine.” Unable to
respond or to indicate awareness, Kate Adamson asserts, “I was
just like Terri…but I was alive! I could hear every word. They were
saying ‘shall we just not treat her?’…I suffered excruciating misery
in silence.”
This personal testimony confirms what Terri supporters have long
held– that the execution sought by her husband Michael Schiavo is
anything but painless and humane. Furthermore, Kate’s remarkable
recovery to nearly full mental and physical health– she still suffers
partial paralysis of her left side– gives Terri supporters hope that
Terri too may still experience a similar recovery, if granted proper
care and treatment.
During her early-afternoon speech Kate declared that “If they want
to kill Terri they should have the guts to put a gun to her head”
rather than condemn her to such a slow and painful death. She
finished off by summing up the full import of the Schiavo case,
saying, “The measure of a society is how they treat the least of us.
Life is sacred or meaningless, there is nothing in between.”
susan,
the CT scan shows such clear damage none of the conventional neurologists at the 2002 trial questioned that the cortex was “primarily liquid”
your assertion that “She has not had proper care” is directly contradicted by Wolfson, guardian ad litem, in his December 2003 report, as well as previoud guardian ad litems in the case.
He is substantially more credible than the claims of the parents and their attorneys.
Remember, whether or not Terri had a living will doesn’t matter _at all_ to her parents.
They would not remove the feeding tube even if they knew it was her wish; they would refuse to honor even a written directive to remove the feeding tube, regardless of whether or not they believed she was in a PVS.
That makes it extremely unlikely they will ever be guardian.
“If it were legal to give her a lethal injection, would that solve the problem for you?”
I am not the person you addressed this to, but for me it is kind of a both.
I am bothered by the death aspect, and think absent actual written and signed by terri herself documents, that she should not be killed. If terri had written out a living will, that detailed the things she did and didn’t want done, this debate would have been over a long time ago, but I think the evidence that she wanted to die is pretty dubious.
But, if the government is going to allow a man to legally murder his wife, at the very least they should accord her a more humane death than dehydration. If we execute prisoners by lethal injection, surely we can do something to make her death quicker and painless.
Bill,
You’re stretching the word “proper” past the limits of the English language.
All guardians found that there was no rehabilitative work for many years. Additionally, she suffers from direct neglect dental, now skin ulcers, untreated infections, and lack of therapy.
Mantis: On what do you base your assertion that Ms. Schiavo will be heavily sedated when they stop providing her with food and water? Do you have information that no one else has? And to answer your question, it is her murder that concerns me first and foremost, and then and only then, the method.
On what do you base your assertion that Ms. Schiavo will be heavily sedated when they stop providing her with food and water?
Standard procedure, friend. This, if it happens, will not be the first time a feeding tube is removed. Do you think they do such things without sedation? What would be the purpose? Sadism?
On what do you base your assertion that Ms. Schiavo will be heavily sedated when they stop providing her with food and water?
Standard procedure, friend.
This is a non answer. Do you have any proof as to what the protocols are in this situation?
This, if it happens, will not be the first time a feeding tube is removed. Do you think they do such things without sedation? What would be the purpose? Sadism?
There’s an old joke. Q: Why are veterinary pediatric medicine so alike? A: Because the patient can’t complain. I guess one could include Ms. Schiavo in that bit.
So, the goal is to remove her feeding tube and let her die but still supply pain meds? Only problem is, is that she won’t have a good route to administer them without an IV. And they never give you so much that your respirations are depressed below a certain rate even if you are screaming in pain. IM pain meds could be a problem b/c you are assuming circulation won’t shut down significantly. I assume she doesn’t have a whole lot of muscle mass to begin with let alone good circulation. Is she going to be sunctioned? She’s going to need it if you got her doped up. If she aspirates her secretions, wouldn’t that be outside of the protocol of letting her die by starvation and dehydration? She’ll probably become septic. I guess antibiotics are out, too. Even though they would alleviate pain.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty sadistic.
To me, the most important point in this case, the one that trumps all of the others, is whether or not it has been proven beyond a legally reasonable doubt that having her feeding tube removed is what Terri wanted in this situation. That’s the standard we use when we kill someone, or even put them in jail; that’s the standard we should use in euthanasia cases.
It sure seems to me that the “prosecution’s” case is based on hersay and conjecture, and the “defense” has raised reasonable doubts. This really isn’t dependant on whether Mr. Schiavo is a loving husband or a money grubbing sadistic bastard, or whether Terri’s family are loving people who just want to take care of her or are a bunch of religious nutters living in a dream world.
It may be that Michael Schiavo is completely trustworthy in this case; that Terri did say that she wanted to have a feeding tube removed under these particular circumstances; that she fully understood the possible situations and ramifications and it wasn’t just an off the cuff remark; that perhaps she even told her blood relatives her wishes and they are just in denial…but it sure hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’m more worried about killing someone who doesn’t want to die, than not letting someone die who does want to die; just like our legal system is more worried about not putting an innocent person in jail than letting a guilty person go free.
That’s what this Florida legislation does. It sets high legal standards for proving a person’s wishes in euthanasia cases: standards that have not been met in this case.
“To me, the most important point in this case, the one that trumps all of the others, is whether or not it has been proven beyond a legally reasonable doubt that having her feeding tube removed is what Terri wanted in this situation. That’s the standard we use when we kill someone, or even put them in jail; that’s the standard we should use in euthanasia cases.”
I agree. We would not be debating this, if she actually had it in writing.
But there are a few things that make me doubt her wishes:
#1 She never told any of her family and friends. My mom and I had a long discussion about this (I knew what she wanted and didn’t want and I told her). I just can’t imagine making that kind of decision, and not telling anyone in my own immediate family or any of my close friends.
#2 If I remember right, she made the comment almost offhand after watching a moving about someone on a respirator. There is a huge difference between having a respirator removed and a feeding tube removed. Most people who have living wills often do not ask that feeding tubes be removed if they are the sole source of support (I think most people do not want to sign up for death by dehydration). I think it is difficult to extrapolate that because she said she didn’t want to be hooked up to machines that it meant she wouldn’t want a feeding tube. Two very different things.
Also, I have long been troubled that during the lawsuit Michael was all about the therapy, and taking care of Terri, but once the checks were cut, he was all about murder. It really bothers me that the state has essentially cooperated in allowing a man to murder his wife for gain (and yes, even if there is no money now, if he had had his way, when he wanted it, he would have been a millionaire). And even if it was about the money then, he can’t make it be about money now, because it would prove all of us who think it is about the money right (hence turning down the offer of a million dollars to give up guardianship of Terri).
Also, regarding pain medications-IM pain medications aren’t nearly as effective as IV meds. To keep a person well sedated, they need IV medications-oral (which is out anyway) and IM just aren’t as effective, there will likely be holes, also, I am not convinced that there is a way to totally sedate her to the point that she feels no pain. I had drugs in labor-they didn’t take away the pain, I coul still feel contractions and they still hurt, the meds just took the edge off.
Paul,
your comments reveal how little experience you have with patients in long-term care settings.
Bedsores are impossible to prevent.
Even using alternating-pressure mattresses, people as immobile as Terri still get bedsores.
Terri was fortunate to avoid them for as long as she did (13 years before her only bedsore)
Even Christopher Reeve fell to sepsis from the lowly bedsore.
People lose teeth all the time in long-term care settings. It is very difficult to keep teeth clean when the person cannot cooperate with you.
All of the guardian ad litems appointed, even Wolfson, went out of their way to praise the care given Terri.
I find them more credible than the parents and their attorneys, who will literally do or say anything to keep the feeding tube inserted for another 5 minutes.
Remember, they would never remove the feeding tube, even did they know beyond any doubt that it was her wish.
None of the “aggressive” (Wolfson’s term) therapies worked the first 4 years after her collapse, even the implantation of the thalmic brain stimulator.
It is very unlikely any conventional rehab facility would agree to take her after the complete failure of previous therapies.
The only people offering therapy at this point appear to be the doctors who filed the most recent affidavits.
None of their therapies are conventional.
Though they claim almost miraculous results from such alternative treatments as hyperbaric therapy, there is NO support for such claims, from either case studies or peer-reviewed medical literature.
Their “therapies” are very expensive, cash only please.
No conflict of interest there. 🙂
The legislature can pass all the laws they want, but it won’t mean a thing. They cannot pass a law that is retroactive in nature. They can’t say that she must give consent when she is already in a state that prevents that consent. They can say that future patients must have given written (or otherwise indisputable) consent.
Now, they might be able to pass a law that says that X number of doctors must agree to this, that and the other thing before removing the feeding tube. Even in that case, the courts may not allow it because there are previous rulings permitting the tube to be removed. At this point, the best anyone can hope for is that people learn lessons from this situation and go forward.
I’ve followed this story closely from Day One, being not just a Floridian but a medical researcher to boot. My profession is often also described as being “professional skeptics” — we assume nothing. As such, I don’t base judgements on hearsay, in particular hearsay from people who have clear agendas or vested interests.
Having a thick skin I’m also amused at the veiled comments attempting to discredit clinically- & legally-based conclusions in favor of emotionally-based ones. Perhaps another thing to consider in addition to the evidence would be the fact that there’s a self-determination issue here as well; while Terri did not leave a living will, a number entities legally & morally empowered to do so have rendered rulings saying that Michael is the one who speaks for her, no one else. Different courts have all found that the choice is his. If simplistic platitudes such as “the law is an ass” are the best that can be found to dispute that, it would seem that says a little about the level of emotions involved. };)
Flail away if anyone feels led to; it won’t raise my blood pressure even a little, nor change the facts either. I for one’ve never really felt qualified to wear a gold-plated badge that says “Deputy God” on it that empowers me to make moral judgements on what’s best for other people; last I checked messiahs usually weren’t self-appointed, anyway.
“The legislature can pass all the laws they want, but it won’t mean a thing. They cannot pass a law that is retroactive in nature.”
Actually, the legislature can make and pass laws that are retroactive. In this case, Michael could probably sue and say that it is impossible for Terri to give consent and therefore the retroactive part of the law can’t apply, but the legislature certainly can pass retroactive laws.
“Different courts have all found that the choice is his. “
And this is truly what sucks, Michael is the only witness to the fact that Terri said she wanted to die, and he is also the one who stands to gain the most from her death. A person who is in a position to make tons of money off the death of another person, should not be the person making decisions about her death.
Basically the government has made itself a party to murder.
I can show you the autopsy report on our person that states “NO DRUGS FOUND”. Bill, Mantis that means zero pain control. Of course the same report claims the dehydration was caused by a stroke not the failure to hydrate.
That is nine days of torture “friend”. This fact, altough not grilled in court by George Fellows was given to me in writing by the State medical examiner. A person part and party to the coverup of the crimes.
As far as the statement about no pervention for bed sores, BULL. At one time before the right to die became all the rage with the left bedsores in a facility like Woodside were concidered criminal neglect. Again kids I was raised around elder care. This is not just something I saw on CNN.
The letter of the law does not allow for dehydrating people to death. Instead thw color of the law allows death by dehydration under futility of care polocies that state no doctor is obligated to give medical treatment that will not cure a medical problem. Further by their definition hydration is medical treatment.
The Doctor that helped to murder my family member views old age as a disease. Cool huh? Nothing cures that so let’s bring back action T-4 and be kind to all of the useless eaters.
Look at Terri Schiavo if you want to make it easier to kill people like her gang because you are looking into your own future.
Bill,
Nonsense.
Bedsores are preventable. The dental problems (five teeth pulled) came about because of the fact that Schiavo forbid dental care.
The brain is an adaptive organ. It needs stimulation in order to work well (just like you needed to get the facts about the case before you barraged me with wishful thinking). Therepy and rehabilitation must be continual. Here again, they were forbidden by the estranged husband.
Why do you indulge yourself in these wishful fantasies? The facts are not even contested by Schiavo.
Would it make you feel better to imagine that Terri had proper care from a person who was trying to kill her for the past ten years? Does that help clear your conscience?
Schiavo has problems dealing with reality and acknowledging facts he doesn’t like. I see he is not alone.
bill-infopro
As some sort of professional you should be among the first to admit what you don’t know.
Here no one knows Terri’s wishes. In fact, if you think about it, you will realize that you don’t know your own mind fully until you actually experience a situation. You might have a general idea, but not with absolute precision.
Death is terminal. There is no imprecision allowed. One a choice for death is made that is it.
Now, who is playing messiah? You would have the decision made by someone else. How reasonable is that?
This is certainly not the mental attitude of someone that is open to the scientific methodology. It sounds more like an extreme belief in a unproven dogma to me.
This is just sickening. Where the hell is the justice in all of this? I’m so angry about this, I can’t see straight.
There is a common misreporting done on this issue. I’ve caught the AP once again today asserting that Schiavo is ALLOWED to remove hydration and food.
The fact is that Greer (the trial judge) actually ordered Schiavo to do this.
This is an important misrepresentation by the media. The government is actually ordering the death of an innocent person.
What they are finally doing is about time, so this woman’s body can die with dignity using sympathetic care and it’s about time.
Anyone who has not been in this position before has no right to make a judgement. If you know about vegetative states, brain death, brain stem death, euthanasia, you might have something worth discussing but unless you’ve been in the shoes o Terri Shiavo or her husband, then you have no right to speak at all.
Cindy
Cindy,
How is it that you can say in one breath that no one has the right to judge and in the next that she should die.
Aren’t you being a bit of a hypocrite?
Is there any stipulation/requirement by the Court that the murder be conducted as painlessly as possible… i.e. under “heavy sedation” as suggested by Mantis?
I ask (knowing the answer) because if it isn’t so ordered by the court, isn’t it likely that her “guardian-husband” will choose to spend the money on his new honey rather than pay for the meds….which likely cost more than a toothbrush? [/sarcasm]
Hiya, Paul!
“As some sort of professional you should be among the first to admit what you don’t know.”
Yup, good advice, for everybody. And if one notes carefully (which is of course the only way we *should*, right? ), one will see that I didn’t presume to say I knew what Terri’s wishes were. What I said (& which is of course correct, ) is that multiple courts at the trial, appellate, *&* supreme (both state & federal) levels have held that Terri’s husband is the only one empowered to speak for her. (I always make sure of my facts efore speaking since I’ve always held to the maxim that to be righteous one must by definition first be right. )
A somewhat interesting (to me at least) aspect of this that most people aren’t aware of, is that Judge Greer is not only a Republican, but a faithful Southern Baptist; however, he has said, quite literally in so many words, that his oath is to follow the law, & that there is no icon of the 10 Commandments in his office.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/06/Tampabay/Quiet_judge_persists_.shtml
On a somewhat related topic, isn’t a little odd that many of the people who say they follow the 10 Commandments (specifically, “Thou shalt not make unto to thee any graven image”), are in fact violating that commandment but insisting that said image be posted in government courthouses?
That of course gets us back to yet another topic, i.e., whether or not the US is a Christian nation. It is not now, & never has been, but naturally that’s another argument for another day. 🙂 [Anyone with an interest *in* it, though, might want to research the Treaty of Tripoli, penned primarily by George Washington himself. The relevant core of it is this: “…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”]
bill-infopro
I don’t put Greer on quite the pedestal that you do. His decisions speak for themselves.
There are many points at which Greer seems to be off on his own outside the law. Most conclusively, he has actually ordered the starvation of Terri.
Woudn’t everyone agree that in the US, we should never allow the government to order our deaths if we have committed no capital offense?
Greer has also not allowed feeding by mouth, an MRI or PET scan, etc. So, any reasonable person would not hide behind his robes. He has run amok and should be impeached.
In the US, citizens are ultimately responsible for the government. Otherwise, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.
I have compiled an organized and filtered list of sources on the affair for your reference.
On the issue of religion — I stay out of that. We should not impose a religious standard to this as a matter of common debate. I don’t know what Greer’s spiritual status is nor do I care. I will judge his actions.
🙂 Remember my mantra: “Assume nothing.” I don’t elevate Greer to any sort of exalted heights, I just note he doesn’t pander to the pseudo-pious. I take nothing personally, & my only agenda’s the facts, which is why I don’t get emotionally caught up in the case as many do. (It’s also why it’s dang nigh impossible to get my goat. ) Different people have different interpretations of the law, which frankly I think is a *good* thing. The fact is that Greer’s decisions have been pretty consistently upheld by higher courts; as the saying goes, law isn’t decided at the trial level, but at the appeal level. Per my previous reference to Occam’s Razor, I figure they all know the law better than I do, so I don’t presume to evaluate either Greer or his decisions — I just state what the facts are, & that’s all. If anyone wants to take issue with that, they aren’t taking issue with any stance of mine, just with reality. 🙂
That said, I *do* personally consider it somewhat arrogant for the legislature & John Ellis Bush to repeatedly presume to tell people how they can live their lives, as well as repeatedly attempting end runs around the separation of powers doctrine, but as with the “Christian nation” issue, “that’s another arg….” 🙂
This the way I see it. And it is kind of simple. People had strokes ect. long before we had modern medicine like feeding tubes. So I feel like if the parents are allowed to feed her by hand then that is what should be done. That is what humans did for a long long time!!!! She will probably die of natural causes soon anyway, unless it is true that rehabilitation will make her better. If so, great. If not, then she will have died not having starved to death and at with her loving parents by her side.
Oh, BTW, just to make sure it didn’t look as though I was ignoring Paul’s offer of resources, I wasn’t., nor do I necessarily suspect it to be biased in any direction. It’s just that as an info junkie by both profession & disposition, I follow vetted sources daily as a matter of course myself, so there wasn’t any reason for overkill. 🙂
bill-infopro,
Interpretations of the law should not involve disobeying the plain language of the law. Otherwise, why have laws at all?
We all know some of the basics from the Constitution i.e. we are a nation of the people” and we can consider how the current case of Schiavo relates to this proposition.
It does not take much expert information to deduce minimal deductions.
So the question is really to each of us, “What does our citizenship mean to us?”
There are many, many related and unrelated issues to get excited about in this case. My principle interest stems from my consideration of the implications of this situation to our liberal democracy. There are times when citizens need to become involved and express (and have) their considered opinions to government.
People are doing this now for the first time across the Middle East. Wouldn’t it be a pity if we thought so little of our citizenship and democracy that we missed this exceptional opportunity?
The ultimate check and balance is the people. Today, the people need to weigh in on how the judiciary has been handling itself as Justice Scalia has made the need for such checks and balances plainly obvious in his dissents.
It’s all POV — your deductions & interpretations will likely always be different from a third person’s, & theirs different from mine. Which of course is why we have the defining “standards” (quotes, since they aren’t always) of judicial interpretation of the law. The fact that Greer’s decisions have consistently been upheld would seem to be evidence that senior levels of qualified reviewers all agree he got it right, & each succeeding level that upholds just serves as additional confirmation of that. Sometimes it’s active, sometimes passive (e.g., the USSC’s refusal to hear Jeb’s attempt to overrule the FL SC), but either way sooner or later a decision becomes definitive.
I could argue all day that that segregation is the law of the land, but odds are people would just be increasingly amused if I did, since all of *them* would have learned otherwise in 8th grade civics class (or whatever they’re calling it this era).
I picture the Founding Fathers laughing their collective keisters off at the antics of all the current executive/legislative/judicial “Mine’s bigger than yours is” foolishness. }:)
bill-infopro
Now you are decending into relativism.
Look, democracies depend on debate and discussion. The presumption is that we can learn from each other and reach conclusions that are approximately logical and good for the common interest.
Otherwise, why waste your time discussing such things here? There must be people at the chat sites who will talk about anything.
In fact, ALICE here will chat you up indefinitely.
Heck, there’s not much I like better than a good sophistic argument; I can do it till the cows come home, from either side. But unfortunately my world has bigger fish that need frying in it, so much as I’d like to count the angles (*&* angels) on the head of a map pin, I’m afraid I can’t, at least not right now. 🙂 As far as descending into relativism, I’m not, at least not on the Schiavo case — the facts are pretty solid, judicially speaking, any/all protestations notwithstanding. Greer’s decisions have been upheld consistently up the line, so judicially speaking that’s pretty much that, unless the appeals courts suddenly do a 180 & start reversing his decisions (which I’m sure we’d all have to agree isn’t too likely, given their collective track record of *not* doing it in the Schiavo case).
Like I say, my only agenda’s the facts, & they speak for themselves, regardless of who likes it or dasn’t. Sayonara, kiddoskis, the old man’s got stuff to do. 🙂
bill-infopro
Yup the facts are solid — solidly against Greer.
Refute any of these charges if you are able.
RE: mantis, Old Coot, julie, and possibly others
There was some question as to whether or not chemical/other aid could be provided for Mrs. Schiavo’s sedation/pain relief. This is a statute that I found for Floridians:
TITLE XXXII – REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
Ch. 458
S. 326
458.326 Intractable pain; authorized treatment.–
(1) For the purposes of this section, the term “intractable pain” means pain for which, in the generally accepted course of medical practice, the cause cannot be removed and otherwise treated.
(2) Intractable pain must be diagnosed by a physician licensed under this chapter and qualified by experience to render such diagnosis.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a physician may prescribe or administer any controlled substance under Schedules II-V, as provided for in s. 893.03, to a person for the treatment of intractable pain, provided the physician does so in accordance with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent physician under similar conditions and circumstances.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, and no treatment authorized by this section may be used for such purpose.
History.–s. 3, ch. 94-96; s. 100, ch. 97-264; s. 4, ch. 99-186; s. 6, ch. 2002-78.
There is a Federal Bill that I believe to be in limbo at the moment called the Pain Relief Promotion Act that has a sister bill in the Senate. I don’t know if they were folded into the Controlled Substances Act or not since some of its issues deal with euthanasia. It’s also possible that the bills have been tabled until medical marijuana issues have been resolved. Suffice it to say that whatever the Federal law is, most states have laws that empower patients to have/request as much medication as necessary to relieve pain without consequence to the doctor from adverse effects from medication or without penalty from the government for its administration. Pain relief is a patient’s right.
Currently pending law covering this at a national level may be reviewed at the Office of Legislative Policy and Ananlysis.
see H.R. 1863—National Pain Care Policy Act of 2003 and H.R. 2507/S. 1278—Conquering Pain Act of 2003.
H.R. 2507 and S. 1278, companion bills, contain broad provisions related to the development of guidelines for the treatment of pain and Internet access to them by providers, quality improvement education projects, pain coverage quality evaluation and information, and family support networks in and insurance coverage of pain and symptom management. NIH-related provisions would require the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Director of NIH, to convene a national conference to discuss the translation of pain research results into health services delivery, including mental health services to people experiencing chronic pain and those needing end-of-life care. The Secretary would be required to use appropriated but unobligated Departmental funds for this conference.
I suspect Shiavo will be provided with whatever medication she needs such that pain will not be an issue. The physicians just will not be allowed to administer enough of a dose to kill her acutely. That (acute intervention to accelerate death) is for other law to address and is not allowed under current Florida statutes.
To all those who want Terri Schindler-Schiavo put to death and are using the “it’s legal because she’s in a persistant vegetative state” argument:
Here’s is what the definition of PVS is in Florida law:
12) “Persistent vegetative state” means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Notice there is no “or” between these two statements. Both (a) and (b) must exist for the legal definition of PVS.
Now watch this video.
Watch this one too.
And this one.
Once you have read the legal definition and watched these videos, and only after you have done all this, feel free to post how much you would like Terri to starve to death. That way the rest of us will know exactly the type of people we’re dealing with.
And if you want to use the hubby’s excuse that “these videos are edited and she’s non-responsive most of the time,” guess what? It doesn’t matter. If she’s responsive for only sixty seconds out of each day, she doesn’t legally qualify as being in a PVS.
If this crap really has to happen, I think Terri’s husband and the Judge should have to be in her room the entire time to watch it from beginning to end. Complete A_ _ holes! You and bill ‘INFOPRO” (LOL :-D) should too. Stacy. Friggin Cold
A_ _ “plastic” people- UNREAL!!!
I put up the wrong link to the legal definitions.
Here is where you can find Florida’s legal definition of PVS. Just click on the “Definitions” link.
I would have linked straight there, but the Florida Senate web site uses HTML bracket characters in its URLs for that level, and it kills the comment parser.
If this crap really has to happen, I think Terri’s husband and the Judge should have to be in her room the entire time to watch it from beginning to end. Complete A_ _ holes! You and bill ‘INFOPRO” (LOL :-D) should too. Stacy
WHILE being denied food and water!
For the Record the rufusal of the US Supreme Court to hear the case was not a ruling against Bush. It was only a refusal, without a reason being given, to hear the case. Speculation by Mr. Bill is about as relivant as a CBS exit poll.
As for this load of equine excriment:
————————-
What they are finally doing is about time, so this woman’s body can die with dignity using sympathetic care and it’s about time.
Anyone who has not been in this position before has no right to make a judgement. If you know about vegetative states, brain death, brain stem death, euthanasia, you might have something worth discussing but unless you’ve been in the shoes o Terri Shiavo or her husband, then you have no right to speak at all.
Cindy
———————–
Cindy your are the quintessential useful idiot even to the point of using the trendy, politically correct name for legalized euthanasia “death with dignity”.
I HAVE BEEN THERE
I would strongly suggest you read an earlier post giving a womans account of going eight days without hydration when she was deemed a life unworthy of life.
What are your creds? Did you read a magazine one time? Perhaps you took a biosthics class in your Jr. year at college?
So just what gives you “the right to speak”?
Beyond the issue of the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo is the issue of protecting the most basic human, civil and constitutional rights of vulenerable persons.
The so called right to die is new creation to protect those that want to hasten the death of others. No way shape or form is it to protect people like TS-S
Moreover (and this is directed to the likes of Cindy), how is dying of starvation “dying with dignity”? Are you actually READING the garbage you type? You try going for food and water for six days, then you tell me how that’s “dignified”. You will be such a disheveled wreck, it is not even remotely funny. I have seen what happens to people when they even skip a few days of food and water, let alone six. It is abominable to treat anyone that way, dying or alive, and this judge has NO business at all ordering it to be this way.
Terri’s case is not one of a “clean break”, where pulling the proverbial plug will end her life straight away. This is starvation, a long and drawn out dying process, pure and simple. We don’t tolerate it with others. We shouldn’t have to for her.
Actually, (Calling the bluff *&* raising the pot by a couple of hundred – I don’t do penny-ante, sorry. ), I personally would have less than 0 problem being there when the tube is withdrawn. In addition, I’ve also been present when life-support was terminated for a family member with Alzheimers. So you see, I’ve seen much worse in my current job *&* others, so emotion-based meandering attempts to bait me don’t really have much of an impact, either in terms of rousing emotions *or* impressing me intellectually. To balance the scales, tell you what — let me make you make you a counter-offer. }:) I’ll show up to do that, & you show up to take Terri’s place ad infinitum in mindless-existence-land in case Dubya’s ill-conceived attempt at bypassing the law makes it to his desk. … Yeah, somehow I didn’t *think* that would be a really enticing proposal.
On the “ruling against Bush” question, I agree — technically that is in fact correct. Technically Redmond makes a good OS, too. What is also correct, & in not merely a technical but an even larger (as in, practical upshot) sense, is that the USSC refused to hear Jeb’s appeal. That is only done in cases where the court deems an appeal has no merit.
In other words, they don’t fritter their precious time with a case that should never have come to them. If that isn’t the practical equivalent of a “ruling against,” then such a critter does not exist. To quote a character that I’ll wager few here have ever even heard of, much less are familiar with, one Mammy Yokum, “Ah has spoken.”
Mammy Yokum eh?
Now it all makes sense to me Bill is Senator Phogbound and has been partaking of kikapoo joy juice.
If only it was true Al Capp and his creations had a great deal more respect for others that this guy.
—————————
Mammy, born Pansy Hunks, was the pint-sized, highly principalled, cornpipe smoking leader of the Yokum clan. Her lethal right undercut, sometimes called the “good night Irene punch” helped her uphold law, order and decency. She seemed the toughest character and kept up the integrity of the strip. Her mantra was “good is better than evil because it’s nicer”.
bill-“INFOPRO-?” (Please!) You already do- penny-ante. The name “INFOPRO” HAHAHA (what-is-that?)speaks for itself. Egomaniacal, pontificating Jerk. How old are you? Bait you for what? There’s nothing there. Tell you what, if- I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.
“Ah has spoken”—-Well “Lil’Abner” you still have a long way to go, and one hellu’va lot more to learn about life and being a member of the “human” race.
Nice to have a confirmation of my earlier statement about emotional attacks appaently being the best attempts that could be drawn on to try to refute the facts. And yes, I admit it’s true that I still have a lot to learn; I hope it stays that way. I’d hate to think what God might do to me if I attempted to be as all-knowing as some ’round these parts. }:)
The infopro, BTW, is not necessarily what I am (although I am, of course), but what I do; try inserting a hyphen & see where it takes you.:) I didn’t think I’d have to explain the obvious to this crowd, but….
Speaking of “obvious,” I got a HUUGE chuckle out of the apparent level of ignorance in some of the people on The Hill who’re presuming to assume the mantle of both omnipotence *&* omniscience. I give you the esteemed Sen. George Allen, (R)VA: “We can’t just sit by and allow this innocent woman to be starved to death. It’s logical to presume that people want to live.”
It would also seem logical to presume from that statement that Sen Allen is not exactly what you might call “up” on the generalities, much less the particulars, of this case. He might want to read up some on the case he’s trying to play God on. He might also want to read up on the fact that GOP policy has historically been to defer to the courts, state legislatures and families in cases similar to this one. }}:)
Oh, I have a great deal of respect for others — so much so, in fact, that I’m willing to let people make their own decisions instead of having resolutions they don’t want forced on them by outside entities. }};) Nice paste job, BTW — I could’ve done the same but didn’t need to search anything out to use the analogy; I grew up reading Li’l A, Bringing Up Father, Pogo, Gasoline Alley, & Alley Oop among others — lots of wisdom in those old comics, you betcha 🙂 And in answer to the person who asked my age, I was born in the Truman administration; that should cover it, I’d think. 🙂
bill-infopro may suffer from a condition known as rectal-cranial inversion. So many empty words, so little to say. Trolls are sometimes fun to watch, but not on this sad thread about a lady who soon may be murdered. .
“What is also correct, & in not merely a technical but an even larger (as in, practical upshot) sense, is that the USSC refused to hear Jeb’s appeal. That is only done in cases where the court deems an appeal has no merit.”
Actually, you can’t say the court ruled definitively in favor of the original court, sometimes the SCOTUS just chooses not to take a case, because they don’t want to hear it, and at a later date they could take up a similar case and rule the other way. A refusal to hear a case doesn’t mean anything about the merits of the case, it just means the court doesn’t want to take it. They could take a similar case years from now, and rule against the trial court judge-one thing about the SCOTUS is that there are very few cases they are obligated to hear.