[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The issue is different. If those articles are correct, the issue is to do with payment of hospital services. There is some reference to the families being notified so that they can move the patient to another facility.

These are big issues, with lots of sub issues. Keep it focused on what we are talking about here. In the relevant analogous situation, the Texas statute appears to be pretty similar to the Florida statute. The only difference seems to be that Texas doesn't seem to have the heightened standard of proof that Florida requires.

But the topic was whether or not it was ethical to withhold artificially induced food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state, something that is done on a daily basis. It was suggested that this amounted to "torture," and Mithras properly introduced evidence that the President himself does not appear to regard it as torture, or he wouldn't have signed the bill.

The standard of proof is a different question, but that's not what Mithras was trying to address.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Of course the decision was based on hearsay evidence - it happens every day when there's no testamentary evidence. A retrial would also be based on hearsay evidence. The parent's testimony is hearsay just as much as Michael's. What makes you think the result of a second trial would be any more sound than the first one?

I said several pages ago, probably ten pages ago, that I wasn't convinced that another judge would rule differently on Michael Schiavo's credibility as a witness. However, I would be happier if another judge did examine him. I think reliance on such tainted evidence is problematic, to say the least, especially when a life hangs in the balance.

The parent's evidence would also be hearsay, if they were testifying as to a specific statement Terri allegedly made. But I haven't heard any report that they contend that she made a statement to them saying that she wouldn't want to be terminated in such a circumstance. The only hearsay appears to be on the pro-termination side.

Are you now saying that cases of this nature should never be decided on hearsay evidence

No, but I think the judge hasn't sufficiently discounted the weight of that evidence by the conflict of interest.

This is what I've been trying to get at since the first page: There has to be a specific reason for a retrial, and you've never given a valid one.

Sure, due process under the 5th Amendment.

The problem is, I read the federal judge's opinion this morning. He hints that such a direct federal claim might have been sufficient for him to issue the injunction, but the parents' lawyers didn't argue that claim. Instead, they attacked the trial judge. With respect to them and their trial experience (vastly greater than mine!), I think that was a tactical error.

There is no basis for assuming that a federal court would have done a better job than the state court.

Now that's an amusing thing for a liberal to say.

Actually, the US Code has quite a few jurisdictional statutes granting jurisdiction for the vindication of federal rights in federal court. Congress and the courts don't usually say that the reason is distrust of the state courts, but we all know that is the reason.

Besides, aren't you the one who's always worried about clogging up the courts?

Yes, that is one of the reasons usually advanced against too easy habeas review. The other is the need for judicial finality in criminal prosecutions. However, this isn't a criminal prosecution, and the jurisdictional statute is only good for this one case. I don't think the courts will be clogged.

And I still don't see why it angers you so much for the courts to take one last look at the facts.

[budster101]

I just heard an interview with a nurse who was taking care of Terry Shiavo.

She stated:

- She noticed needle marks at various parts of Terry's body. Armpits, etc. Nobody could figure out why they were there. She suspected foul play and contacted law enforcemnt to investigate.

- She also said, she and other nurses were feeding Terry with a baby bottle and she was NOT aspirating the food. She enjoyed it. When Terry's husband found out about it, he went nuts.

This nurse was later fired for calling the cops to investigate, due to too many odd things with this patient. She was fired.

[constrictor]

Damn those rascally courts for not doing what the executive and the legislative branches want when they're pandering to the religious right! If only the courts could be controlled by the executive and the legislature, as Jesus would have wanted...

Originally posted by budster101:

- She also said, she and other nurses were feeding Terry with a baby bottle and she was NOT aspirating the food. She enjoyed it.

How does one emply the other?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by hayesk:
How does one emply the other?

How can you not understand this? This woman quite obviously went from being a twenty-something who stated she would never want to be kept alive like this, to what she is now: a woman who really enjoys having each and every one of her actions, movements, and sounds be a reflex, which is all her jelly-brain can muster, while her parents stubbornly parade them around like circus show marvels.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by budster101:
She noticed needle marks at various parts of Terry's body. Armpits, etc. Nobody could figure out why they were there. She suspected foul play and contacted law enforcemnt to investigate.

And why is there no record of this with any local law enforcement? And this has only now come up in this trustworthy interview?

Originally posted by budster101:
She also said, she and other nurses were feeding Terry with a baby bottle and she was NOT aspirating the food. She enjoyed it.

I don't see the connection, did she tell them she enjoyed it?

This nurse was later fired for calling the cops to investigate, due to too many odd things with this patient. She was fired.

And she filed no wrongful termination suit? I call shenanigans.

Originally posted by constrictor:
How can you not understand this? This woman quite obviously went from being a twenty-something who stated she would never want to be kept alive like this, to what she is now: a woman who really enjoys having each and every one of her actions, movements, and sounds be a reflex, which is all her jelly-brain can muster, while her parents stubbornly parade them around like circus show marvels.

Ah. My mistake.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by zerostar:
And she filed no wrongful termination suit? I call shenanigans.

Wel, you see, the aliens came and........

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I said several pages ago, probably ten pages ago, that I wasn't convinced that another judge would rule differently on Michael Schiavo's credibility as a witness. However, I would be happier if another judge did examine him. I think reliance on such tainted evidence is problematic, to say the least, especially when a life hangs in the balance.

The parent's evidence would also be hearsay, if they were testifying as to a specific statement Terri allegedly made. But I haven't heard any report that they contend that she made a statement to them saying that she wouldn't want to be terminated in such a circumstance. The only hearsay appears to be on the pro-termination side.

Page 5 of the trial court opinion. I take it that you still haven't read it.

I'm trying to get through this discussion without jumping down your throat, because I know you're smarter than this, but it's very frustrating when you won't take your own advice and read the actual legal documentation.

No, but I think the judge hasn't sufficiently discounted the weight of that evidence by the conflict of interest.

Which evidence? The husband's? I've already told you that he discounted the weight of the husband's testimony, for exactly the reasons you're suggesting. There was other evidence given. How many times do we have to go through this?

Sure, due process under the 5th Amendment.

You can't just say "due process." You have to specifically identify how and why due process was violated. You have to point to a specific error. Not only have you failed to do so, but even today, you've demonstrated that you haven't read the trial court opinion.

Now that's an amusing thing for a liberal to say.

In a criminal proceeding, the state has a vested interest. It's therefore natural and proper to think that a federal court would be able to review the matter with more detachment (whether that's true in fact is another matter). This, on the other hand, is a civil matter in which the state has no apparent interest. Apart from idle speculation, there's no reason to believe that a federal judge would conduct a fairer trial than Judge Greer did. If you can point to some specific basis for it, I'd be happy to hear about it, but so far you've only speculated.

Actually, the US Code has quite a few jurisdictional statutes granting jurisdiction for the vindication of federal rights in federal court. Congress and the courts don't usually say that the reason is distrust of the state courts, but we all know that is the reason.

But those statutes don't exist in this type of case, and for good reason. That's why they had to pass a special statute, after the fact.

I know as well as anyone that federal judges and courts have more stature than state judges and courts. But you still haven't identified any specific flaws in Judge Greer's ruling.

Yes, that is one of the reasons usually advanced against too easy habeas review. The other is the need for judicial finality in criminal prosecutions. However, this isn't a criminal prosecution, and the jurisdictional statute is only good for this one case. I don't think the courts will be clogged.

Whether or not the courts actually get clogged, it was pure politics that led to the passage of this statute. That's fine, but let's be honest about it.

And I still don't see why it angers you so much for the courts to take one last look at the facts.

I'm not angered by the idea of judicial review, I'm angered by:

1. Idle speculation and misinformation as to what actually happened in the Florida courts.

2. The politicization and exploitation of the case based on said speculation and misinformation.

3. The insinuation that anyone who respects the court's judgment in this case - including those of us who have personally been through episodes like this - is a killer, torturer, sadist, lacks compassion, etc.

[OldManMac]

Something else to chew on, regarding this issue.

The panderers
Abandoning principle and reason, DeLay, Bush and their ilk are trafficking in cheap emotions -- and debasing our civic ideals.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Alan Wolfe


March 21, 2005 _|_ House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, one feels safe in assuming, is no reader of classic texts in moral philosophy. But in rushing through legislation that would allow a federal judge to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, he took sides in one of the most widely debated controversies in the history of ideas.

In making moral decisions, we can be guided by two different sets of considerations, those of empathy and those of principle. Should we respond to the particulars of a situation that cries out for our sympathies? Or are we obligated to put emotions aside and shape our conduct by universal norms meant to apply to all situations? An era dominated by mass media imagery will nearly always decide for the particular. I know of no one watching the endlessly repeated film clips of Terri Schiavo, seeming to respond to other people in the room with her, who is not moved. If one person can be prevented from dying, the obvious response would be to prevent her from dying.

Yet however we think and act in a media-saturated age, nearly every serious philosopher, none more so than the great Immanuel Kant, believed that we would be wrong to act out of emotional identification with a particular person. Especially when an issue is as heart-wrenching as the Schiavo family drama, it is important than we never lose our capacity to act reflectively rather than impulsively. And reflection demands that we consider each case on the basis of rules meant to apply to all cases.

Americans embody Kantian reasoning in the often-cited dictum that we are a government of laws, not of men. The Schiavo case reminds us why that dictum matters. In a case as conflict-ridden and morally wrenching as this one, the courts have reached a decision: Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri would not have wanted to live this way has been upheld. In relying on its own form of civil disobedience, the U.S. Congress is claiming that we are a government of men, not of laws. Even a moment of reflection suggests why this is a bad idea; governments of men give to whomever is in power the capacity to overrule rights and procedures to get what they want. Another term for that is "dictatorship." Upholding law might just be more important than preventing a death.

Emotion is a poor basis for making moral decisions for a second reason; it is cheap, while reason is dear. Nothing is easier to offer than sympathy at a distance. Those rushing to Terri's "side" have no conscience with which to struggle, no doubts to be resolved, no principles to violate. They need not even be consistent, which is why they can urge respect for Terri's life while ignoring all the deaths their cuts in Medicaid will cause. Emotional appeals surround us. No politician will earn a profile in courage by wallowing in them.

Reason, by contrast, ennobles and inspires, demanding, as it does, that we consider the interests of humanity as well as humans. Far from being easy, reason requires courage. Contrast the posturing of Republican legislators with the dignity of Florida Judge George Greer. In the past two weeks one judge has been shot in Wisconsin and the family of another killed in Chicago. Judge Greer knows full well that in the Schiavo case, passions run high and people with links to violence, such as antiabortion activist Randall Terry, are involved. Greer could have taken the easy way out and protected himself and his family. He chose to uphold the majesty of the law. He should be a hero. Zealots could consider him a murderer.

Emotion, finally, fails as policy because hypocrisy is its first cousin. Intent on protecting Terri Schiavo's right to live, Republicans cannot be oblivious to the benefits yielded by her death. To this point, "liberals" and "activist judges" can only be blamed for trying to resolve the case. Imagine the conservative glee if it is resolved and the feeding tube is removed. Every court ruling will become grounds for appointing only the most conservative of judges. Every Democrat who speaks in the language of rights and reason will be treated as an accomplice to death. The quest for emotional satisfaction can never be fulfilled; Bill O'Reilly will always demand more. We cannot predict Terri Schiavo's fate, but we can surely anticipate outrage inflation, as every attempt to find moral guidelines in the murky world of death and dying becomes a political football.

This is why a sane society would try to put cases such as Terri Schiavo's outside the realm of politics. Let us by all means have a national debate over persistent vegetative states, living wills and conflicts between husbands and parents. But let us hold that debate over general principles. Our laws must be designed for unnamed individuals in the future, not on behalf of specific people in the here-and-now.

Choosing the universal over the particular, our framers banned "bills of attainder," laws that punish single individuals. The bill passed this weekend may not be a bill of attainder because it did not involve imposing a punishment. But we would nonetheless be wise to recall James Madison's warning, in Federalist No. 44, that "bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."

Tom DeLay is a speculator in the lives of others. A political system that responds to him has come a long way from the ideals of the men who founded it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Page 5 of the trial court opinion. I take it that you still haven't read it.

I'm trying to get through this discussion without jumping down your throat, because I know you're smarter than this, but it's very frustrating when you won't take your own advice and read the actual legal documentation.

Honestly, I don't care what this trial judge said in his Opinion and you are right, I am not going to read it (at least not now). I regard that opinion as dead. However, I'm not here saying that the judge made an error. I have said all along I wasn't there beside him examining the witness. I am saying there is sufficient grounds for me to say that what Congress did to create a one time opportunity for federal review (or better yet, a retrial) was not improper. Congress decides what the jurisdiction of the federal courts is.

Remember, I am the guy who is not religious, who favors the right to die, thinks that physician assisted suicide ought to be decriminalized, and who is generally not someone who has ever identified himself as "pro-life." But you are just shoving me into that corner. I am absolutely shocked at the enthusiasm here for killing and dogmatic opposition to any possibility of making sure that an irreversable decision should be checked, and checked again. This is just extreme, and inhuman, and it leaves me flabbergasted.

In a criminal proceeding, the state has a vested interest. It's therefore natural and proper to think that a federal court would be able to review the matter with more detachment (whether that's true in fact is another matter). This, on the other hand, is a civil matter in which the state has no apparent interest.

Now here we just simply, and probably philosophically, disagree. The state does have an interest in the protection of human life. Even Roe V. Wade says that (and Casey, and the rest). It is also the reason why the state criminalizes murder. This is not just some bloodless contract dispute between private litigants. This is an adjudication of the right of a human being to live (or conversely, her right to die, although the Supreme Court hasn't held there is such a right). So the state has an interest, and under the 5th Amendment, it is constitutionally protected.

In addition, what is killing her is state action. It's the state that ordered the removal of her feeding tube. So the State of Florida is not a mere bystander. That being so creates a federal interest.

[budster101]

1. Why did Michael Schiavo order a full stop to all rehabilitative exercises?
I've read reports from hospice nurses that said that Terri was able to eat Jello, chew and swallow it...and Michael said (paraphrased) "Don't feed her that way, that's therapy, put the feeding tube in."
If she could eat jello, she could gain the necessary nutrients to live, isn't that right?
If Michael Schiavo hadn't ordered a full stop to all rehabilitation would Terri be in much better shape today? And would she be able to discuss her wishes personally?

2. If the rehabilitation that was happening, before Michael Schiavo put a stop to it, was working...Could she still be rehabilitated now?
Shouldn't we at least try?

3. Is Terri in pain?
From what everybody is saying, I'm hearing that "No, she's not in pain, she can't feel anything at all"...than why, OH WHY, can't we just leave her be?
She's not comatose folks.

4. There have been numerous offers from several people of several millions of dollars, that if Michael Schiavo would let go of his guardianship; Terri would receive the best care until the day she died of natural causes, no tax payer would pay another dime of support, Michael Schiavo could marry the girl he's been living with and has kids with, Terri's family would be able to visit her anytime they want AND Terri could continue the rehabilitation that was stopped so many years ago...Why can't this be an option?

Why are we in more of a hurry to let Terri Schiavo die than we are to put a convicted murderer to death by lethal injection?

Her eyes are open...She has a soul...She is not on life support...If you put food in her mouth she would chew it and swallow it.

If there is a scintilla of hope, why are we so eager to pull the plug?
Something is wrong here.

--

These are not my words but the words of a friend, so I am posting them here, though some may have been already stated, I am not about to chop his copy up. Besides, I agree with him.

Indeed, there is too much wrong here with those who wish for her to die.

BTW: How many democrats went over and voted for the Bill? 57? 67?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I am absolutely shocked at the enthusiasm here for killing and dogmatic opposition to any possibility of making sure that an irreversable decision should be checked, and checked again.

15 years.

[waxcrash]

budster101 - why do you keep posting these points that are just hearsay. Unless you have documented proof that these people actually said the things you claim, your points are baseless.

[budster101]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
budster101 - why do you keep posting these points that are just hearsay. Unless you have documented proof that these people actually said the things you claim, your points are baseless.

Proof?

Question: Do you believe Robert Blake killed his wife? If so, prove it.
Question: Did OJ do it? Prove it.
etc...

Case of law eh?

My points are not baseless.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by budster101:
If you put food in her mouth she would chew it and swallow it.

No.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by budster101:
I've read reports from hospice nurses that said�

There have been numerous offers from several people of several millions of dollars, that if Michael Schiavo would let go of his guardianship�

Let's see these reports.

Who are these millionaires?

[budster101]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Let's see these reports.

Who are these millionaires?

Thanks for teh softball:

Offer

"Rancho Santa Fe businessman Robert Herring says he will give $1 million to the husband of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo if he will relinquish guardianship to her parents rather than end her life next week."

Rejected as well as a 10 million dollar offer

Why refuse an offer of 1 million? He would lose nothing, not even face.
Why refuse a 10 million dollar offer? Hmm?

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by budster101:
Thanks for teh softball:

Offer

"Rancho Santa Fe businessman Robert Herring says he will give $1 million to the husband of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo if he will relinquish guardianship to her parents rather than end her life next week."

Rejected as well as a 10 million dollar offer

Why refuse an offer of 1 million? He would lose nothing, not even face.
Why refuse a 10 million dollar offer? Hmm?

See that wasn't that hard. I'm glad I could teach you the importance of backing up your claims with proof. It's good practice with your future posts to back up your claims with proof or no one will take you seriously.

Now back to the reports from hospice nurses. Can you back up your claim of what they said?

[Y3a]

The husband tried to kill her and broke bones, and caused her brain damage. IF he relenquishes custody, and they are able to get her to speak again as some experts have stated, she could finger the husband as the bad guy. You know, the "Husband"(better or Worse...) who is shacking up with another potential victim, and their kids(bastards).

WHAT ARE THE MOTIVES OF THE PLAYERS???

[goMac]

Originally posted by Y3a:
The husband tried to kill her and broke bones, and caused her brain damage. IF he relenquishes custody, and they are able to get her to speak again as some experts have stated, she could finger the husband as the bad guy. You know, the "Husband"(better or Worse...) who is shacking up with another potential victim, and their kids(bastards).

WHAT ARE THE MOTIVES OF THE PLAYERS???

Oh, now her husband tried to kill her?

Wow... you guys get more desperate every day. Next he'll be Osama Bin Laden in hiding with plans to blow up Florida. The bastard.

[InterfaceGuy]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Now back to the reports from hospice nurses. Can you back up your claim of what they said?

Heidi Law's affidavit is on the family's website.

At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. Olga and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm

[Millennium]

Since when is it necessary to chew Jell-O? It is entirely possible that Terri may be able to swallow the stuff, but that wouldn't mean anything, since swallowing is a reflex and no one is disputing that she has reflexes (the debate is over whether she has anything else). This said, the affidavit from the nurse is troublesome in that it claims Terri never gagged; this, too, is a reflex, and it would be most unusual even for a fully-aware human being to never gag even once in a period of years. If that reflex is damaged, then it's a powerful argument in favor of the husband.

All of this said, putting a small amount of food in her mouth one time would constitute an extraordinarily simple test that would not prolong her life in any significant way. Of course, this is unlikely to happen, since her husband is so militant that the last time the tube was removed he wouldn't even allow her priest to put a Communion wafer on her tongue while performing last rites. But something similar -perhaps a single water cracker- could put the question to rest once and for all, without prolonging her life for more than a couple of minutes at most.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by InterfaceGuy:
Heidi Law's affidavit is on the family's website.



http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Millennium]

Make no mistake: I believe the doctor's claims that she is in a persistent vegetative state. She is not truly braindead, but frankly I consider her close enough for most purposes (though the legal definitions don't agree).

However, we cannot know her wishes, because every witness who claims to know is seriously compromised. The conflicts of interest involved are some of the most impressive in recent memory. Furthermore, the small number of witnesses who had any hope of credibility before the conflicts of interest surfaced all contradict each other.

My point is that truly respecting her wishes is impossible, because we have no way to know what those wishes are. The best we can do is guess, and so the only way to ethically proceed is in a manner which allows that guess to be revised if the situation changes, we become able to verify her wishes, and out initial guess turns out to be incorrect. In this particular case, since death is not reversible, that leaves only life as a valid option.

What happens after death is a matter of philosophy; we have no way to observe it and/or communicate those observations back to the living. What a person in PVS experiences is also a matter of philosophy, for the same reason; we have no way of observing it or communicating any observations back to the conscious. Law and philosophy do not mix.

[saddino]

Originally posted by budster101:
Why refuse an offer of 1 million? He would lose nothing, not even face.
Why refuse a 10 million dollar offer? Hmm?

So, Budster, if your wife told you she never wanted to be kept alive by machines, you'd let someone keep her plugged in for $1 million dollars?

If so, then you are sick.

Thankfully, Michael Shiavo is not.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The conflicts of interest involved are some of the most impressive in recent memory. Furthermore, the small number of witnesses who had any hope of credibility before the conflicts of interest surfaced all contradict each other.

No kidding. This one reeks.

If nothing else, the removal of food should be denied on the basis that he argued (and received) money to support her for the rest of her natural life in the malpractice suit. You shouldn't be able to badger malpractice money in order to sustain someone's life and then turn around and say "pull the plug." If her wish was to be starved to death, he should have said something about it during the malpractice trial/discovery, and he didn't.

If he succeeds in pulling the plug, then the compensatory damages allotted for maintaining her life should be repaid.

Where are the attorneys that argued the malpractice suit? Why haven't they been held accountable on this one? And for that matter, the judge too.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Millennium:
All of this said, putting a small amount of food in her mouth one time would constitute an extraordinarily simple test that would not prolong her life in any significant way.

She's had swallowing studies done in the past. Obviously the results, whatever they were, didn't result in the (numerous) verdicts you seem to want. What would be the benefit of another swallowing study?

Its clear here that Schiavo's parents will continue to file motion after motion in an attempt to get the verdict they want to hear. Yes, i understand why they are doing this... However, at some point (like today's federal decision), there must be an end to the litigation, or the litigation will continue ad infinitum.

[budster101]

Originally posted by saddino:
So, Budster, if your wife told you she never wanted to be kept alive by machines, you'd let someone keep her plugged in for $1 million dollars?

If so, then you are sick.

Thankfully, Michael Shiavo is not.

I would never let it get to that point. Your pigeonholing technique is not only an insult but childish.

You missed my point. He refused the money? Take the money, give it to his wife's parents to take care of her... or take the 10 million and do the same. After-all it isn't about the money now is it?

If I thought for a moment, my wife could recover, I would keep her alive and stay by her side for as long as it took, not go off and shack up with some bimbo and have some children out of wedlock.

He's a scumbag and his decisions do not remotely come close to what I would do in that very same case. I also think he is repsonsible for her being in that state to begin with. I base that on the nurse's actual words in an interview, as well as a host of other information that has yet to be confirmed.

[goMac]

Originally posted by budster101:
I would never let it get to that point. Your pigeonholing technique is not only an insult but childish.

You missed my point. He refused the money? Take the money, give it to his wife's parents to take care of her... or take the 10 million and do the same. After-all it isn't about the money now is it?

If I thought for a moment, my wife could recover, I would keep her alive and stay by her side for as long as it took, not go off and shack up with some bimbo and have some children out of wedlock.

He's a scumbag and his decisions do not remotely come close to what I would do in that very same case. I also think he is repsonsible for her being in that state to begin with. I base that on the nurse's actual words in an interview, as well as a host of other information that has yet to be confirmed.

He has WAITED 15 years for some hope she could recover. It became obvious 7 years in that she would never recover.

Her brain is missing parts. Even if she did wake up SHE WOULD NOT REMEMBER WHO MICHAEL WAS, MUCH LESS THAT SHE IS HIS WIFE. Is that fair to him? Can you blame him for moving on? His wife is already gone. The person who she was will not return, even if there was a miracle from god and her brain grew back.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Honestly, I don't care what this trial judge said in his Opinion and you are right, I am not going to read it (at least not now). I regard that opinion as dead. However, I'm not here saying that the judge made an error. I have said all along I wasn't there beside him examining the witness. I am saying there is sufficient grounds for me to say that what Congress did to create a one time opportunity for federal review (or better yet, a retrial) was not improper. Congress decides what the jurisdiction of the federal courts is.

You've repeatedly stated, based on misinformation that you refuse to acknowledge, that you thought the trial was tainted. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter what the trial court said or did, and that even if a proper trial was held, even if there was no discernible error, you would consider it proper to have a retrial. You are now officially out of touch with reality.

Remember, I am the guy who is not religious, who favors the right to die, thinks that physician assisted suicide ought to be decriminalized, and who is generally not someone who has ever identified himself as "pro-life." But you are just shoving me into that corner. I am absolutely shocked at the enthusiasm here for killing and dogmatic opposition to any possibility of making sure that an irreversable decision should be checked, and checked again. This is just extreme, and inhuman, and it leaves me flabbergasted.

Again, my objection is not to judicial review - this case has been checked, and checked again, for 5 years - my objection is to the fact that people like yourself, and the blowhards in Washington, have been making pronouncements about the case without even bothering to check the facts.

Now here we just simply, and probably philosophically, disagree. The state does have an interest in the protection of human life. Even Roe V. Wade says that (and Casey, and the rest). It is also the reason why the state criminalizes murder. This is not just some bloodless contract dispute between private litigants. This is an adjudication of the right of a human being to live (or conversely, her right to die, although the Supreme Court hasn't held there is such a right). So the state has an interest, and under the 5th Amendment, it is constitutionally protected.

In addition, what is killing her is state action. It's the state that ordered the removal of her feeding tube. So the State of Florida is not a mere bystander. That being so creates a federal interest.

I didn't say the state doesn't have an interest in protecting human life - I said the state doesn't have an interest in the sense that they aren't a party to the litigation. In a criminal case, the state is a party and obviously has a more direct and potentially dangerous interest. It's therefore no coincidence that habeus corpus hasn't been extended to ordinary probate cases.

You're effectively arguing that any case in which a party's life is in balance should be subject to federal review. Indeed, since you seem to be in favor of retrials with or without error, we might as well dispense with state-level adjudication of such cases altogether. That's fine if it's what you want - my point is that it's not the law as the law now stands. By all accounts, the state court made a full and fair adjudication of this case under existing law. This is essentially all I've been trying to demonstrate for 10 pages. But since you don't think it even matters, I appear to have been wasting my time in that regard.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Yes, that is a shame. If only we had some kind of....third branch of government in this country to....judge...which side is right. Wait, what? We do? Well then it's a shame that it hasn't taken this particular case under consideration. What? It has? And it's come to a conclusion? Well now I don't know what to think.

For one, you know that heresay (after 7 years of silence) is now admissable in court cases where one's life is in the balance. "Um... oh yeah, I just remembered... about 7 years ago, right before her 'accident', she told me she didn't want to be kept alive."

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
She's had swallowing studies done in the past. Obviously the results, whatever they were, didn't result in the (numerous) verdicts you seem to want. What would be the benefit of another swallowing study?

Of a swallowing study, nothing. I'm asking about chewing. The former is a reflex, but the latter is not.

The last time the tube was removed, Schiavo was adamant about not letting the priest put a wafer in her mouth to receive communion during last rights. Is this anything other than profound disrespect for her religious beliefs? Whether or not she would follow the Church's stance on euthanasia is irrelevant to whether or not she'd want to receive last rites, so why go this far? How can we reconcile this with respecting her wishes?

[Psychonaut]

New "Get Your War On" strips,
and they're all about Schiavo.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The last time the tube was removed, Schiavo was adamant about not letting the priest put a wafer in her mouth to receive communion during last rights. Is this anything other than profound disrespect for her religious beliefs? Whether or not she would follow the Church's stance on euthanasia is irrelevant to whether or not she'd want to receive last rites, so why go this far? How can we reconcile this with respecting her wishes?

Was this before or after nurses reported him asking "When is the bitch going to die"?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
In a criminal case, the state is a party and obviously has a more direct and potentially dangerous interest. It's therefore no coincidence that habeus corpus hasn't been extended to ordinary probate cases.

You're effectively arguing that any case in which a party's life is in balance should be subject to federal review.

Ordinary probate cases don't involve the state killing the "decedent." That's a bit of a distinction between this case, and the probate of an estate, don't you think?

As for whether there should be federal review whenever a party's life is in the balance, well, that actually isn't all that far from the law as it exists now. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act sharply cut back habeas review, but it does contain special exeptions in death penalty cases.

I realize, of course, that habeas is going somewhat astray from this issue, but in terms of due process, I see no justification for giving a criminal defendant any more protection than a person who isn't even accused of a crime.

Edit: It occurred to me that you seem to regard deference to the trial judge as some kind of constitutional affront. You do seem very worked up about any perceived slight to a judge who you presumably don't know personally.

Deference to trial judges is mostly a matter of judicial economy and perhaps comity. It could only be constitutional if it resulted in a court of appeals deciding facts in a way that affected 6th Amendment rights to confront an accuser (which don't apply here in a civil context).

Other than that, I don't see the issue and I don't particularly care if he would be offended. We have already discussed that there are no legitimate federalism concerns with Congress granting jurisdiction to vindicate federal in federal court (as opposed to in state court). That being so, I don't see anything particularly troublesome in taking this issue from the trial judge. My guess is, he's probably glad to be rid of the hot (98.6 Fahrenheit) potato.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Was this before or after nurses reported him asking "When is the bitch going to die"?

I haven't heard that one. All I know is that he interfered with a religious ceremony carried out in accordance with her beliefs. Your average Communion host has no appreciable nutritional value, at least in the physical sense (its spiritual value is, of course, debatable), and would not have prolonged her life in any significant way.

That's what strikes me as strange. Although Schiavo's interpretation of feeding as medical therapy is at least partly logical, this is an absurd extreme to take it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The last time the tube was removed, Schiavo was adamant about not letting the priest put a wafer in her mouth to receive communion during last rights. Is this anything other than profound disrespect for her religious beliefs? Whether or not she would follow the Church's stance on euthanasia is irrelevant to whether or not she'd want to receive last rites, so why go this far? How can we reconcile this with respecting her wishes?

Was this before or after nurses reported him asking "When is the bitch going to die"?

[Y3a]

GoMac stated

"Even if she did wake up SHE WOULD NOT REMEMBER WHO MICHAEL WAS, MUCH LESS THAT SHE IS HIS WIFE."

So you 'know' whats in her mind? or is it that you are assuming?




I see no one has made any comments as to the husbands motives? He's almost another Scott Peterson.

it's another small step toward euthenasia for all. Thats why the Democrats for Death are all on this one. goes with the fetus killing, as a selfish womans right...

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I see no one has made any comments as to the husbands motives? He's almost another Scott Peterson.

it's another small step toward euthenasia for all. Thats why the Democrats for Death are all on this one. goes with the fetus killing, as a selfish womans right...

WTF???? You scare me.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Y3a:
So you 'know' whats in her mind? or is it that you are assuming?

Do you not understand? The portions of her brain that would contain that are gone. They aren't just shut down, or asleep, they are physically gone. Those memories are gone.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I see no one has made any comments as to the husbands motives? He's almost another Scott Peterson.

Plenty of people have made accusations like this. They cannot be proven at this point, but they cannot be ruled out, either; he has means, motive, opportunity, and no alibi. There is no hard evidence, but there is some circumstantial evidence which has yet to be refuted. There is reasonable doubt that he's actually done anything wrong, but there is also a conflict of interest which keeps him from being even remotely trustworthy.

it's another small step toward euthenasia for all.

Frankly, I agree with you here; it's yet another step towards the "culture of death". Not that there's any love lost between me and the Pope, but his term for it is apt: a culture where life is no longer respected for what it is, but only as a means to some other end.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Frankly, I agree with you here; it's yet another step towards the "culture of death". Not that there's any love lost between me and the Pope, but his term for it is apt: a culture where life is no longer respected for what it is, but only as a means to some other end.

How about a culture where death is respected JUST AS
MUCH as life. I think the "culture of death" is really
about our Western society's attempts to delay and/or
negate a process which is JUST AS NATURAL as life.

Life is not an end in and of itself, neither is death.
Neither are life or death a means to another end, they
are simply part of the larger continuum of experience
that inheres to one's existence as human.

We should respect and honor the process, the act, of
death as much as we do for the act of life.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by budster101:
Take the money, give it to his wife's parents to take care of her... or take the 10 million and do the same. After-all it isn't about the money now is it?

If I thought for a moment, my wife could recover...

So you leave no possibility that he believes the doctors' assessment that she won't recover? Or that given this acceptance that he wants to put his wife's remains to rest? Motive? Have you no appreciation for the value of a proper funeral? Are you familiar with the concept of closure?

spacefreak:
...heresay...

Hearsay? Please read the thread before responding.

spacefreak:
Was this before or after nurses reported him asking "When is the bitch going to die"?

What did we just talk about like 2 hours ago? I'll give you a hint: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...11#post2451251

Y3a:
So you 'know' whats in her mind?

Quite literally. Notice the CT scan of her brain that was posted several times in this thread? Notice the big patches of nothingness? That's what's on her mind.

Y3a:
goes with the fetus killing

How does it go with the killing of thousands of actual grown humans in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, or right here at home with the poverty and disease? I'm glad to know the party in power is eager to save the autonomic functioning of the pre- and post-living, but not those who actually have functioning nervous systems.

[Uncle Skeleton]

er, yeah, someone beat me to it, but here's what I was writing while he did so:

Originally posted by Millennium:
..."culture of death"...a culture where life is no longer respected for what it is, but only as a means to some other end.

I must take issue with this sentiment, as it's deceptive and inflamatory. What exactly to you mean by "life respected for what it is?" All life? You would never kill another living thing? A gnat? A carrot? You do realize that everything dies, right? Death is not unnatural, far from it. It's unavoidable. It's the single concept that every living thing ever is guaranteed, that it will one day die. It's not something to be afraid of. Seems to me the "culture of death" is one that's obsessed with and terrified by death, one that never accepts the inevitable and wastes much of its resources debating how to deceive themselves for the longest amount of time about the fact that they will die

[Millennium]

I do think he'd be dishonest to keep whatever money is left from the malpractice suit. It was given in the interests of keeping her alive. If it isn't going to be used for that purpose, then it should be donated to some similar cause -maybe a medical research organization- or possibly to the hospice which has been caring for her.

That said, it wouldn't wise to do anything with it until everything was finished. We will see what happens, one way or another.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There is reasonable doubt that he's actually done anything wrong, but there is also a conflict of interest which keeps him from being even remotely trustworthy.

Conflict of interest? He's her husband. He's the one who's been by her side for these dozen or so years. He's the one she expressed her wish not to be kept like this. How is their commitments to each other and their bond of marriage a conflict of interest now?

I guess all this 'sanctity of marriage' rhetoric we've been hearing means nothing. If you agree with the Religious Right than you're a loving spouse if you don't then you're just another suspect.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Hearsay? Please read the thread before responding.

What did we just talk about like 2 hours ago? I'll give you a hint: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...11#post2451251

There is a under-penalty-of-perjury affadavit signed and filed by one of the nurses who heard his "When is that bitch going to die?" statement, so you can drop the "rumor-spreading" allusion.

[InterfaceGuy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
What did we just talk about like 2 hours ago? I'll give you a hint: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...11#post2451251

Hint: Google is your friend.

http://www.terrisfight.net/press/092304statement.html

The ruling by the Florida Supreme Court today was not unexpected; nevertheless the family is disappointed at the outcome. We would like everyone to understand the reason the Florida legislature and Governor Bush interceded in Terri�s case was to protect Terri from a serious miscarriage of justice. The Governor specifically wanted answers to the following questions, all of which are extremely troubling: (1) Why Terri�s purported desire to die was hidden from the jury in the 1992 medical malpractice case, during which Michael Schiavo testified that Terri would need compensation to live out her life; (2) What did Michael Schiavo mean when he purportedly said at Palm Gardens Nursing Home such things as �When is she going to die?� �Has she died yet?� �When is that bitch going to die?� �Can�t you do anything to accelerate her death?� (3) What Michael Schiavo knows about the multiple traumatic injuries of relatively recent origin that were found to be present in a bone scan conducted on Terri by Dr. Campbell Walker in March of 1991? (4) Why were nurses� notes which documented Terri�s rehabilitation potential deleted from her chart at Palm Gardens? (5) Why were observations of the nursing assistants regarding Terri�s level of function and responsiveness deleted from her chart? and (6) What would Terri�s desires be regarding who should make end-of-life decisions for her if she knew that Michael Schiavo was living with another woman who has borne two children by him?