[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bstone:
True, but what I was meaning is that several physicians have laid out what the law/procedure is in regards to someone being unable to speak for themself vis-a-vis wishes for life support. Whereas it is laypersons who pass the laws, they have a tremendous amount of physician influence (tho there should be more, IMO).

However, my medical license is granted to me by the State board of health, which is headed by a physician.

No, to me more accurate, your medical license is granted by the state. The state board of health only gets its authority to grant licenses from the state.

It's an important distinction which all the professions should remember. The professions are not above the law. Obviously, the professions have considerable influence in how the law in their area of expertise is developed. But ultimately, it is up to those yahoo laypersons to decide. Ultimately, we live in a democratic society, not an oligarchy. This issue is a particularly good example because the real issues are moral and ethical more than medical. I don't think a medical license (or a license to practice law) makes anyone more qualified to make moral judgments than anyone else. Saying otherwise strikes me as just elitism.

In terms of deference in this thread, actually, none of us is qualified to comment on Florida law. I don't think anyone has yet commented who is either a Florida lawyer, or a Florida physician. The rules on this do vary considerably from state to state.

That said, asd above made some comments about the law in Texas that don't appear to be the way the law works in Florida. In Florida (as I understand it) the spouse does not automatically have the right to make the decision to terminate the life. Florida law tries to determine the patient's wishes. Texas may use a different rule, but this case isn't in Texas.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I suspect someone is trying to indirectly invoke Godwin's Law on you, by claiming that the land which spawned the Nazis...

i am not the land which "spawned" the nazis...

Originally posted by Millennium:
That said, this thread is likely to go into the PoliWar lounge unless you stop trying to project all of American politics onto this one single issue.

oh, but it is so completely examplary of what is going on in american politics these days.

/my last political comment in this part of the lounge

[bstone]

In July 2003 when my grandmother lapsed into a coma as a result of incurable cancer, we placed her in a hospice center where she received care that removed the pain and let her die with dignity.

This was in Florida. She had no living will regarding health care.

However, as the family, we were allowed to and authorized to make the decision to stop radiation and aggressive chemotherapy which would not have cured her or extended any meaningful life.

I don't understand why Congress didn't become involved in my family's case. (Perhaps because we're not right wing Christians or have such family appealing to the state.)

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Which is more important, some manufactured concept of 'dignity' or that the person's wishes are respected?

oh, so you are implying that people who can't communicate their whishes don't have any right to be treated with dignity?

"yes, please keep me alive for another 20 years as a living vegetable!"

can you even imagine a person saying anything like that?

plus SHE DID communicate her whishes on an earlier occasion (actually several earlier occasions, - there are quite a few posts about this here).

[slow moe]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh, so you are implying that people who can't communicate their whishes don't have any right to be treated with dignity?

"yes, please keep me alive for another 20 years as a living vegetable!"

Human beings don't become vegetables.

[bstone]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Human beings don't become vegetables.

But they can slowly wither and waste away. Espically when you have fanatically fundamentalist Christian relatives who zealously work to impose someone else's will on you.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by bstone:
But they can slowly wither and waste away. Espically when you have fanatically fundamentalist Christian relatives who zealously work to impose someone else's will on you.

You hate Christians. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bstone:
But they can slowly wither and waste away. Espically when you have fanatically fundamentalist Christian relatives who zealously work to impose someone else's will on you.

You are presuming that what Michael Schiavo says is what is wife wanted is what his wife in fact wanted. That's the core contested issue.

An argument that assumes the conclusion isn't a very persuasive argument. For all we know, her blood relatives could be right about her wishes, and her husband wrong (or lying).

[Cody Dawg]

You hate Christians. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us?

There are a couple of people here who are hateful - including people who are happy that people die when a plane flies into a building.

[bstone]

Originally posted by slow moe:
You hate Christians. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us?

Utter rubbish. I sincerely and intensely dislike when any group, espousing a "holier-than-thou" attitude, attempts and succeedes in promoting their political-religious agenda.

I have no issues with devoutly and orthodox faiths. Just as long as they don't try to impress their way of life onto everyone.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For all we know, her blood relatives could be right about her wishes, and her husband wrong (or lying).

or it could be the other way around. stripped of all the political rhetoric and broohaha polemics, who would you believe personally?

a:"yes, i wan't to be kept alive as a human vegetable, whithering away a lifeless mass of mostly water..."

b:"no, i would rather you end it now, and let me rest in piece."

i don't think there is much of a realistic choice here, is there?

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


There are a couple of people here who are hateful - including people who are happy that people die when a plane flies into a building.

......

(yet again, all that Cowy Dawg deserves as a response)

[bstone]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
or it could be the other way around. stripped of all the political rhetoric and broohaha polemics, who would you believe personally?

a:"yes, i wan't to be kept alive as a human vegetable, whithering away a lifeless mass of mostly water..."

b:"no, i would rather you end it now, and let me rest in piece."

i don't think there is much of a realistic choice here, is there?

[asd]

You are presuming that what Michael Schiavo says is what is wife wanted is what his wife in fact wanted. That's the core contested issue.

Exactly. And the courts of Florida, time and again, over and over, has ruled in favor of Michael and the removal of the feeding tube.

I wonder when is this going to end? What if the federal court agrees with the Florida court? Will Congress then pass another law on this issue?

[Cody Dawg]

What if Terri wakes up and says that Michael Schiavo beat her as a lot of people suspect?

Then what?

Of course, I doubt very much that she will speak again, but if you look at the videos on her site she clearly says "Momma" on one of them. A "vegetable" doesn't say "momma."

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
What if Terri wakes up and says that Michael Schiavo beat her as a lot of people suspect?

Then what?

Of course, I doubt very much that she will speak again, but if you look at the videos on her site she clearly says "Momma" on one of them. A "vegetable" doesn't say "momma."

One clip in thousands of hours of video footage. Easily explained as a lower brain function of the medulla. Not cognitive in any, shape or form.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
or it could be the other way around. stripped of all the political rhetoric and broohaha polemics, who would you believe personally?

a:"yes, i wan't to be kept alive as a human vegetable, whithering away a lifeless mass of mostly water..."

b:"no, i would rather you end it now, and let me rest in piece."

i don't think there is much of a realistic choice here, is there?

If its written down in a living will then it doesn't matter, but if its not then I choose to error on the side of Life.

You seem to want to impose your idea that Life in her condition is no way to live therefore she wants to die.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


[snip]

For all we know, her blood relatives could be right about her wishes, and her husband wrong (or lying).

We know better: Judge Greer found Mr. Schiavo's position regarding his wife's wishes to be sufficiently attested.

Let me quote the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida. This is what the Court had to say about Mrs. Schiavo's parents argument that the testimony brought upong the trial court was insufficient.

Finally, the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence.

See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273.

In Browning, we stated:
In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life.... In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor life.

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives.

After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

Of course, either you or anyone else, could know better than the ones that either first hand or through appeals, examined the case. Yet, I doubt it.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by slow moe:
If its written down in a living will then it doesn't matter, but if its not then I choose to error on the side of Life.

yes, "LIFE", - not vegetableism! that's where your argument falls flat on it's a55.

oh, and just for your info, a "living will" can be contested as well. anything can be put into question.

once again, common sense should pervail, - not (pseudo)religious dogma.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by bstone:
Utter rubbish. I sincerely and intensely dislike when any group, espousing a "holier-than-thou" attitude, attempts and succeedes in promoting their political-religious agenda.

I have no issues with devoutly and orthodox faiths. Just as long as they don't try to impress their way of life onto everyone.

Then do a 3,000 word dissertation on Wahabi Islam and its effect on young middle eastern women.

Originally posted by slow moe:
If its written down in a living will then it doesn't matter, but if its not then I choose to error on the side of Life.

FYI, it's err on the side of life. Err is a verb, error is a noun.

You seem to want to impose your idea that Life in her condition is no way to live therefore she wants to die.

From everything I've heard and read she stopped "living" a long time ago.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
yes, "LIFE", - not vegetableism! that's where your argument falls flat on it's a55.

You're talking about ending life based on the quality of that life. That's a horrible thing.

[Cody Dawg]

Not only that, but she hasn't indicated that her quality of life is not acceptable; strangers are stating what a quality of life SHOULD be. Also, her husband is stating that she supposedly would not want to live this way - the same husband that has the biggest conflict of interest that there is: He is now living with another woman and has two children with her.

[Mithras]

So moe, you would oppose allowing an individual to have a feeding tube removed, even if they explicitly stated such a wish in a living will?
i.e. ending their life based on "quality of life"?

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Not only that, but she hasn't indicated that her quality of life is not acceptable; strangers are stating what a quality of life SHOULD be. Also, her husband is stating that she supposedly would not want to live this way - the same husband that has the biggest conflict of interest that there is: He is now living with another woman and has two children with her.

She stated she never wanted to live in a vegetative state with no chance of survival. She told this to her husband and friends, who have testified, under oath and this has been the position of every court in Florida.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh, so you are implying that people who can't communicate their whishes don't have any right to be treated with dignity?

No, only that dignity can only be determined by each individual, and that there is no such thing as a universal concept of dignity. If someone cannot communicate their wishes, then we have no idea what that person would consider dignified.

"yes, please keep me alive for another 20 years as a living vegetable!"

can you even imagine a person saying anything like that?

Actually, I can. I would not say it myself, but I personally know people who would. Given this, I have no right to make assumptions one way or the other. But the hell of it is, I've found the needed counterexample to your precious logic, and by doing so I've taken away your right to assume as much as I've taken away mine.

When I say that I support keeping her alive, it is not based on an assumption that this will somehow be found to be her wishes. Quite the opposite; it assumes that this will somehow be found to not be her wishes. Can you honestly say that you've covered that angle?

plus SHE DID communicate her whishes on an earlier occasion (actually several earlier occasions, - there are quite a few posts about this here).

Not in any way which we can now verify. Both sides claim this for their side, and neither can be trusted.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
a:"yes, i wan't to be kept alive as a human vegetable, whithering away a lifeless mass of mostly water..."

b:"no, i would rather you end it now, and let me rest in piece."

i don't think there is much of a realistic choice here, is there?

No, but your assumptions are similarly unrealistic. In particular, you fail to account for people who do not see PVS as being "a human vegetable, withering away as a lifeless mass of mostly water".

[bstone]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Not in any way which we can now verify. Both sides claim this for their side, and neither can be trusted.

That's a little silly to state. Judges and courts are experts in discerning what is fact vs fiction. Does the theme of every court ruling on behalf of Michael Schiavo not lead you to the conclusion that, beyond any reasonable doubt, she did indeed express those wishes?

[zerostar]

Originally posted by bstone:
She stated she never wanted to live in a vegetative state with no chance of survival. She told this to her husband and friends, who have testified, under oath and this has been the position of every court in Florida.

You can say this over and over, but some will never hear it.

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
What if Terri wakes up and says that Michael Schiavo beat her as a lot of people suspect?

A classic reduction of cognitive dissonance. You and "a lot of people" cannot accept that every court in this case has sided with Michael Schiavo. For people like you, "it just doesn't make sense" so you struggle to reconcile this fact with absurdisms, e.g.

- "the judges must've missed something"
- "the doctors the court appointed must've missed something"
- "Michael Shiavo cheated on her and that's why she had an eating disorder"
- "Michael Shiavo beat her"

Cody, shouldn't you trust the courts in your state? Don't you think the courts weighed every possible result, watched every minute of video, and tried to apply the law as soundly as possible?

You stated earlier that you would accept the ruling of a federal court if it found in Michael's favor. Why do you place your utmost trust in the federal courts but not your own state courts?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is nothing improper here, and if the facts are as clear cut and unambiguous as you are all claiming, you will still get to see her die. Only at least her rights will have been fully adjudicated (hopefully). Hopefully, also she will get a guardian ad litem to argue her case in court, a normal protection I understand she was denied by the Florida courts.

1) Her rights were fully adjudicated. Florida law was followed to the letter. Actually, the Florida courts have entertained far more motions and appeals from her parents than the rules normally allow. If you read the opinions, you would also see that the appellate court made exceptional efforts to review the facts. They even watched the videotapes. In every instance, they've affirmed the findings of the trial court and the independent physicians.

The guardian ad litem appointed by Governor Bush (a licensed lawyer and physician) confirmed that the law had been followed and that the trial and appellate courts acted lawfully and reasonably in all respects. He also confirmed that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. He also had nothing but praise for Michael Schiavo's conduct.

If a federal trial judge reviews the case de novo and makes a different finding of fact, all it means is that he disagrees with Judge Greer, a contingency that I addressed earlier. That doesn't mean the case wasn't fully adjudicated - it means that two trial judges disagree, which is not unusual. This is basically a form of Congressional judge-shopping. To say that there is nothing "improper" in it is to whitewash it.

The case has been fully adjudicated; you just don't like the outcome. That's your prerogative, but let's stop pretending that the case hasn't received a full hearing, or that this isn't a simple usurpation of states' rights. That's fine if it's what people want, but let's at least be honest about it.

2) She did have a guardian ad litem appointed within the normal dictates of Florida law, and his findings were weighed by the court in the normal fashion (actually, she's had more than one GAL appointed). It's all right there in the trial court opinion.

Guardian ad litems don't argue cases - they make findings and recommendations and the court considers them along with all the other evidence. In fact, the court here adopted the GAL's finding that the testimony of Michael alone was insufficient to make a case for removing the feeding tube.

You were wrong about the basis of the court's decision before - why keep making the same mistake?

3) I'm disappointed that you persist in characterizing those of us who respect the court's findings as sadists who "will get to see her die." I don't parade my personal matters around the forums, but my family and friends have been in situations like this more than once - just a few months ago, in fact - and no one I know takes pleasure in seeing someone die. These are matters for grown-ups.

One of the more interesting facts that I came across in reading the various opinions is that the parents here testified that even if Terri had instructed them to let her die, they would not honor her wishes. Indeed, they testified that if she developed gangrene, they would amputate every one of her limbs, and if her heart failed, they would have open heart surgery performed - this despite acknowledging that she is in a persistent vegetative state. Even the guardian ad litem appointed by Governor Bush described it as "disturbing." I feel sorry for the parents and would not take such lurid, emotional testimony at face value, but what they're doing has less to do with compassion than with self-gratification. I trust that you would not so treat a rat.

By the way, there has never been a single finding of wrongdoing or unethical behavior on the part of the husband - in every instance in which his conduct has been raised and examined, he has been found to have acted in an exemplary and devoted manner.

I respect the basic intent of the right-to-life position but I'm really sickened by the misinformation that continues to be spread around and the dishonesty that pervades so much of the debate.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by bstone:
That's a little silly to state. Judges and courts are experts in discerning what is fact vs fiction. Does the theme of every court ruling on behalf of Michael Schiavo not lead you to the conclusion that, beyond any reasonable doubt, she did indeed express those wishes?

Not only experts in general, but the sole ones legitimated to discern it in these cases.

[budster101]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
No, but I think Terri is a "lost soul." Or maybe her husband is. It had nothing to do with you, per se. It's just a Robert Frost poem that popped into my head when I saw your sig.

You freaked me out for a second.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i am not the land which "spawned" the nazis...

No, you're not. But I believe you were mistaken for such. You assume too much intelligence from people who sling around the word "nazi" as an insult. They saw "Germany" in your profile, which you'll note is right next to every post you made and made unfounded assumptions. They don't have a monopoly on unfounded assumptions, but that doesn't make it right to make them, does it?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by bstone:
That's a little silly to state. Judges and courts are experts in discerning what is fact vs fiction. Does the theme of every court ruling on behalf of Michael Schiavo not lead you to the conclusion that, beyond any reasonable doubt, she did indeed express those wishes?

No, because I believe that they have incorrectly adjudicated a very clear conflict of interest.

[budster101]

Terry needs her own laywer to look out for her. Not her estranged husband.

I cannot understand why, at this point, 15 years later, her parents cannot take and care for her? What does he want? He's proven his metal as a husband by staying with her for a few years, then being rewarded with (1 million; malpractice sute), and then wishing to turn her off and cary one with his new life / wife / and kids.

I think he is not thinking of anyone but himself.

[Cody Dawg]

saddino
Cody, shouldn't you trust the courts in your state? Don't you think the courts weighed every possible result, watched every minute of video, and tried to apply the law as soundly as possible?

You stated earlier that you would accept the ruling of a federal court if it found in Michael's favor. Why do you place your utmost trust in the federal courts but not your own state courts?

That's exactly right.

The judge overseeing this case is legally blind.

How could he look and see this woman's face on any videos?

He could not. Therefore he should have recused himself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
If a federal trial judge reviews the case de novo and makes a different finding of fact, all it means is that he disagrees with Judge Greer, a contingency that I addressed earlier. That doesn't mean the case wasn't fully adjudicated - it means that two trial judges disagree, which is not unusual. This is basically a form of Congressional judge-shopping. To say that there is nothing "improper" in it is to whitewash it.

The case has been fully adjudicated; you just don't like the outcome. That's your prerogative, but let's stop pretending that the case hasn't received a full hearing, or that this isn't a simple usurpation of states' rights. That's fine if it's what people want, but let's at least be honest about it.

zigzag, please don't try the states rights argument. This is an issue of federal rights. At a minimum, the due process clause of the 14th amendment, probably also the 5th Amendment. Or perhaps that wishy-washy right to privacy that you are so fond of. As such, it is properly within Article III as a federal question. Then you need a jurisdictional statute. Congress supplied one last night. They did it very narrowly -- granting jurisdiction in this one case. But it is not improper to do that.

Congress could have simply declared this a federal preemption issue just like it has done in Civil Rights cases. Those also grant federal jurisdiction in "states rights." I don't see you out there complaining about the Civil Rights acts and how tehy federalized state law issues, so you shouldn't wrap yourself in states rights now. That bird flew the coop 150 years ago.

If the federal trial judge agrees with this trial judge, then I will be satisfied. My complaint is with the process, not the substance of the law.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's exactly right.

The judge overseeing this case is legally blind.

How could he look and see this woman's face on any videos?

He could not. Therefore he should have recused himself.

Justice is blind. He has been making the right, sound and excellent decisions.

BTW, do you even know the definition of legally blind? It doesn't necessarily mean you can't see anything. It often means your far sighted vision is lacking, but upon closer inspection you can see fine.

My older sister, who at age 9 devloped macular degeneration and is legally blind can see and describe things just as I can, and I have only a very, very minor prescription.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's exactly right.

The judge overseeing this case is legally blind.

How could he look and see this woman's face on any videos?

He could not. Therefore he should have recused himself.

I'm afraid I can't agree, as far as that goes. Anyone could have described what was going on, and it's unlikely that in a roomful of observers anyone could have lied about this.

This means that the only reason the judge would need to actually personally see Terri's face would be for the emotional impact. That impact would only hinder his ability to make an impartial judgment based solely on what facts could reliably be gathered. If anything, in an emotionally-charged case like this blindness would be a help, not a hindrance.

I blame the judge for incorrectly adjudicating a conflict of interest, and the appeals courts for not picking up on this, but that is the only thing I can blame them for. This is not the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last; if either were true then there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by asd:
I have been following this story and as a physician (cardilogist) I wanted to clear up some misconceptions and issues. As I practice in Texas, there may be some small differences in the law, but all states have similar laws.

. . . .

In this case, there is some controversy about wheather Terri is in a persitent vegetative state. I don't know this case, nor have I examined Terri or her records, so how could I know. But neither do any of you, or anyone in Congress, or any physician who has not examined her. It is up to physicians to decide this. From what i can tell, many doctors, and many judges over the years have concluded that she is in a persistent vegetative state. We have to rely on the system to work. This has gone on for YEARS, and if there was a doctor who, after examining Terri and her records, felt that there was a chance for recovery, then the court would have to weigh that. But from what i can tell, that is not the case.

It is very disurbing and frightening to me that the Congress is getting involved in this. I an not very political (didnt vote for either Bush or Kerry) but it seems that the christian right has a huge amount of political clout now and the more secular politicians are affraid to go against them.

I hope i have clafified some of the issues. Mainly i hope that people learn from this fiasco and either prepare a living will, appoint a medical power of attourney, or most importantly TALK TO YOUR FAMILY about what YOU WANT to be done in end of life situations.

As the surviving spouse, Michael Schiavo had the authority to act as surrogate and withhold treatment and let her die - he could have done so years earlier. Instead, he spent years trying to treat her, only to be told by the doctors that nothing more could be done; then, instead of making the decision to withhold treatment himself, he petitioned the court to make the decision. Yet many people here continue to accuse him of a malicious effort to kill her off.

All of the courts, all of the independent physicians, and all of the guardian ad litems (including the one appointed by the Governor) have concluded that she is in a persistent vegetative state. The parents themselves stipulated to this at the trial stage, only changing their minds later when they realized that they had run out of arguments and got some charlatan neurologist involved. It's very sad.

[budster101]

What possible motive could her parents have for keeping their daughter alive?

Her husband for having her die?

Why does he care anymore? He has a new 'love' and children...


-
Hearsay: Parents and he had a falling out after a 1 million dollar award to him for malpractice, soon after he wanted to pull the plug on his wife. (I wonder why, if true?)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by zigzag:
As the surviving spouse, Michael Schiavo had the authority to act as surrogate and withhold treatment and let her die - he could have done so years earlier. Instead, he spent years trying to treat her, only to be told by the doctors that nothing more could be done...

Which, incidentally, directly conflicts with the wishes he now claims that she told him. If her wishes are truly in his heart, then why did he not pull the plug many years ago?

then, instead of making the decision to withhold treatment himself, he petitioned the court to make the decision...

Another interesting point, because the court would have no authority to do this. If he has the authority, then he must make the decision himself; that's the way these laws work.

Yet many people here continue to accuse him of a malicious effort to kill her off.

Because his arguments smell every bit as sketchy as those of her relatives.

[budster101]

What is wrong with erring on the side of life? Why do so many have a problem with that? Her parents want to take care of her.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by budster101:
What is wrong with erring on the side of life? Why do so many have a problem with that? Her parents want to take care of her.

Because her wish -- proven in accord to the court's standards -- was not to be kept alive in this state. Because you can err on the side of life when there are doubts, and in such a case that would be fine. But in this case you would be acting against Mrs Schiavo's wishes.

Because, in the end, it does not matter whether you like or dislike the courts findings, you know far less than they do (the best that has been brought upon these boards is conjecture), and you are not the one legitimated to test Mr. Schiavo' reliability, nor to decide if his wife should or not receive further treatment.

Because we all are bound to judicial decisions and judicial review (of course, as far as they act within the Law), which is the mean we have imposed on ourselves to make sure their decisions are as accurate as possible, no matter whether I or anyone agrees with their outcome.

[bstone]

Originally posted by budster101:
What is wrong with erring on the side of life? Why do so many have a problem with that? Her parents want to take care of her.

And she doesn't want to "live" in this way. That is the problem at hand.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
zigzag, please don't try the states rights argument. This is an issue of federal rights. At a minimum, the due process clause of the 14th amendment, probably also the 5th Amendment. Or perhaps that wishy-washy right to privacy that you are so fond of. As such, it is properly within Article III as a federal question. Then you need a jurisdictional statute. Congress supplied one last night. They did it very narrowly -- granting jurisdiction in this one case. But it is not improper to do that.

Congress could have simply declared this a federal preemption issue just like it has done in Civil Rights cases. Those also grant federal jurisdiction in "states rights." I don't see you out there complaining about the Civil Rights acts and how tehy federalized state law issues, so you shouldn't wrap yourself in states rights now. That bird flew the coop 150 years ago.

Oh come on - it's only become a matter of "federal rights" because the Congress has specially acted, after the fact, to create jurisdiction where there otherwise was none. A federal court already denied jurisdiction once. But for this new act, it would not be before the federal courts.

I'm not the one who gets sanctimonious about states' rights around here - like I said, if it's what people want, so be it. I've said many times that the states' rights argument is usually a hollow one on both sides. I'm just trying to get people to be honest about it.

If the federal trial judge agrees with this trial judge, then I will be satisfied. My complaint is with the process, not the substance of the law.

But you don't appear to have familiarized yourself with Florida law or the facts of the case. That's my only complaint. I'm only asking people to read the opinions, then make a judgment.

[Cody Dawg]

What "state?"

She is not comatose.

Maybe Terri didn't want to be kept alive COMATOSE.

She is not comatose.

She is interacting with people and her environment.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
What "state?"

She is not comatose.

Maybe Terri didn't want to be kept alive COMATOSE.

She is not comatose.

She is interacting with people and her environment.

Utterly pathetic. She has movements and motions which are the product of lower brian functioning of the medulla. She has no higher brain functioning, mostly due to the fact that her brain is mostly liquified.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
She is not comatose.

She is interacting with people and her environment.

Have any medical doctors working on her case actually said this?